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.

Sorted now. Thanks

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?

I'm looking for someone who might be able to spray paint a towel radiator for us. We bought it for our new bathroom but the colour is different to what we expected and it?s too late to return it. We just want it in a simple matt black finish. It has a brushed aluminium finish. Any recommendations would be much appreciated. I?ve attached a photo, the rad is 870 x 485 mm

We have relocated our bathroom by swapping it with another room in our ground floor flat. I have been doing the work myself, including the electrical wiring, but I believe that building regs require the work to be certified by an accredited electrician (or I have to pay southwark council to do it). No new circuits have been installed - I have re-purposed wiring that was already there. The work I have done: ? Two additional downlights added (properly IP rated, GU10). Daisy chained from existing two lights already in the room. ? Chased two cables in for wall lights (to go either side of the mirror) and run these on the lighting circuit ? Swapped the light switch for a 2 switcher - running the downlights and extractor to L1 and the wall lights to L2. (The junction box that this is all wired into is accessible by pulling out one of the downlights) ? There was an alarm system in the top corner of the room with a fused spur on the ring circuit. On removing the alarm I have changed this to a switched spur and added a second switched spur right next to it. These are for the underfloor heating (under 1kw so as per regs can go on ring circuit) and electric towel rail. ? Added extractor isolator to lighting circuit and extractor fan (timer) ? Removed twin gang plug socket and single gang plug socket that were next to each other and replaced with a non-switched fused 3A spur feeding a shaving socket that is going inside vanity unit. The old sockets are right next to where the vanity unit is going and so to avoid having to make more mess chasing, I decided to run it from the ring circuit fused down. (I believe this is compliant). ? Removed twin gang plug socket on opposite wall (fed from socket directly behind on other side of the wall in the living room) and made-good ring circuit. Currently everything is exposed and so now would be the best time for an inspection. Do let me know if you could help or have any recommendations. Thanks

Hi there We have a new bathroom that will need tiling in the next 2-3 weeks. The room is 2.5m x 1.8m. All tiles are Porcelanosa Porcelain around 10mm thick. 2.5m Long Side Walls Porcelanosa Medite Calpe Bianco 75mm x 300mm Heringbone layout 1.8m End Walls (one of which has door in) Porcelanosa Medite Calpe Sea Green 75mm x 300mm Heringbone layout There are no windows. Please see pictures for how we want the Heringbone formation to be laid. Floor Porcelanosa Carrara Blanco Natural 596mm x 596mm White grout throughout floor and walls. The room will be prepared with Marmox tilebacker board on all walls and the floor. 12.5mm board on the short end walls as these are stud walls. 6mm board on the long side walls as these are masonry walls. 30mm board on the floors. The floor has a single fall 800 x 800 wetroom tray in one corner with a 'pure' tileable drain cover. The wetroom is 30mm deep at top edge which will line up with the marmox board. The shallow end is 18mm deep. Please bear in mind edging the tile where the board drops from 30mm to the shallow 18mm part of the tray (where the glass shower screen will sit). All boards will be fixed with proper washers, covered in mesh tape and the shower area will be tanked ready for tiling. The floor will also have a Warmup StickyMat underfloor heating (resting on the boards on one side of the room and on the wetroom tray). We will just dry lay this prior to tiling as the specs state it can be tiled straight onto using flexible adhesive. The shower area will have a Schluter Kerdi double Niche with shelf that we will want in Heringbone layout (as much as possible) also. Holes will need to be cut for concealed WC Frame, conceleaed shower valve ( + hand spray + main shower head), concealed bath valve (+ hand spray + bath spout) Hole for a waste pipe in the floor under where the freestanding bath will go - although this doesn't need to be too precise as it won't be seen - can be a square gap. Hole for waste pipe and hot and cold pipes behind where the hung vanity unit will be. Again, not seen so can be a square gap. There will be three sockets up in the top corner of the wall with the door in - isolator switches for fan, underfloor heating and electric towel rail. We will fix these back boxes in place with a lip of 10mm so that they end up flush with the tiles. Tilers - please quote for the job. Any recommendations of people also much appreciated. Thanks!

Looking for recommendations for local groundwork / drainage experts for a job as soon as possible (see below for details) = = = = = = = We are re-locating our bathroom to an internal room in our ground floor (/basement) victorian flat. As such, we need to run a new soil pipe and channel in waste for the bath, shower and basin in the floor also. We suspect it is a 4? concrete slab with earth underneath (typical for this type of house - built circa 1890). We do not know of anything underneath, but we would ask that you bring suitable test equipment just to be sure. The new soil pipe will need to run the full length of the room (2.5m) and the full length of the hallway (also 2.5m) to meet the existing shared soil pipe outside which we suspect runs under our front door step outside - it?ll need to be joined in (above ground it?s a metal pipe, not sure what happens below ground). We require: 1) Soil pipe channel cutting including enough depth to allow a suitable fall - we will eventually be replacing the floor in the hallway but we will need to cover it up until we do that. So as clean a cut as possible would be ideal so we can put temporary boards on after the new pipe is installed and re-concreted. 2) Channels cutting in the new bathroom as per approx. in the picture attached for bath, shower and basin waste pipes. These will all join the new soil on a boss each. 3) Digging outside the front step and connecting the new soil pipe to the existing one. Please note that as it is a shared pipe from two flats above, the actual connection stage will need to be done as quick as possible so as to not cause too much disturbance. Preparatory work can be extensive if necessary, but the actual cut and join will need to be as efficiently as possible. - - We will need proper dust extraction as the cutting will be inside the flat - -

We have fitted a new piece of worktop in our kitchen, but we need the edge routing to match the rest of the worktop before we can oil / finish it. I have pictures, but can't attach them here for some reason (I can email them though). The worktop can be unscrewed and removed and we have a deck outside (it's a ground floor flat) which can be used to work (to avoid excess dust inside the flat). Simple job for an expert router. Please get in touch if interested.

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...