dougiefreeman

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

2500 signatures and counting...

What worries me most is that the cycling lobbyists? holier-than-thou attitude has the ear of the council, whilst the rest of us do not. And I don?t currently see a way to remedy that.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dougie ? of course it?s a fact. It?s self evident > they?ve chosen to drive. Nobody forced them. They > chose. The alternatives may be less convenient but > they still chose to do it. > > It?s really simple ? if we want less traffic then > everyone must reduce their use of motor vehicles. > People don?t like this fact so they invent > distractions and whatabouts. > > Drive less and use fewer services that use motor > vehicles and traffic will reduce... Give it a go! Ahh I think I get it now, you think it?s a fact because you say so? Just in case there was any misunderstanding before, I was asking you to provide your evidence / source for your claim that the bad traffic was made up of people who?d made a ?short journey?. I was wondering how on earth you could possibly know that. We?re you knocking on windows asking them how far they?d come? Or do you have access to some data that the rest of us don?t?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The solution is to drive less especially at > traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty > years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part > of the problem and that prevents any charge of > hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their > vehicles less.) Translation: I don't drive so I don't see why anybody else needs to. Might as well stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Nah Nah Nah Nah I'm not listening"

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s down to individuals > choosing, not needing, to travel short distances > by car. It?s that simple. Do you know this for a fact? If so, please cite source(s) of your evidence.

Well that's all well and good if you physically are able to use a bicycle. For me, when I can get around on foot / pt / scooter etc I do. But my work requires a vehicle, there's no way around it. Whilst short un-necessary journeys must be curbed, higher taxes will just penalise the people who actually need a vehicle. And generally it follows that the majority of those who actually need a vehicle for work (or just for getting around) are not usually at the higher end of the earning spectrum. Tradesmen, delivery drivers - and to use my own profession musicians and events people. As has been outlined on here in multiple threads (and evidence-backed) cycling is not the holy grail solution to London-wide reduction in pollution. Public transport is the main thing that will solve the problem and then investment in low-polluting vehicles (including incentivising purchasing green vehicles). Sure cycling (and scooting and walking etc) needs to be invested in to make it safer for people to do - but it's never going to provide the sort of scale of change that we actually need to make the necessary difference in the fight against climate change because if people need to get in a car to make their journey, (as there's no viable alternative) then they will. Even if they are absolutely rinsed financially by local councils / TFL etc for the privilege. If you have any kind of stuff that you need to take on a journey - heavy bag, instrument, case, equipment or whatever - but you don't have a train station or a reliable bus service nearby, then what choice do you have but to get in your car? That sort of situation does not just apply to long journeys. And a bicycle is not going to provide a solution to problems like that. A few new local bus routes might...

If you read further back in the thread you will find multiple suggestions and alternatives. Contrary to popular belief, the ?pro removal of the planters? people are not just whinging moaners who want to go back to driving everywhere. There has been a lot of discussion already - as has been stated we are all in agreement that vehicle useage needs drastically reducing. However, The benefits need to be felt by all and not just the wealthy few streets enjoying the closures. Any negative impact needs to be fairly distributed amongst all residents / areas. And the views of all residents (not just cyclists) needs to be heard.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi FairGirl, > I was Southwark Cyclists chairperson for several > years ending from memory 2002. > I bought/rented the southwark Cyclists URL way > back pre 2000 and it was only around 15 years that > I transferred maintaining these payments to > Southwark Cyclists. > > I am a member of London Cycling Campaign - have > been since 1992 - which automatically makes me a > member of the local Southwark branch called > Southwark Cyclists. > I have also been a member of Living Streets which > makes me a member of Southwark Living Streets for > similar period but never leading them. > Surprised to hear my name is still against the > Southwark Cyclists URL. > > You asked about other possible stakeholder groups > - many are asked but not so many choose to get > involved. > WRT to Southwark Cyclists - it felt like we were > often banging our heads against brick walls when > we were consulted. > > Personally. I think implementing a CPZ and LTN's > at the same time makes it very hard to digest > together. An all day CPZ as a trial instead of, as > my lot proposed in 2021, a 1 hour CPZ during a > trial is the wrong way round. > > With a Climate Crisis it is strange how so many > are so adamant nothing should or can change. We > need a 90% reduction in our CO2 emissions to have > habitable planet. Forgive me James, but I don?t believe the advocates for the reversal of the road closures are ?adamant nothing should or can change?. From these threads I think it?s pretty clear that we are all in agreement that we need to reduce vehicle useage - however it needs to be properly thought through and ALL residents need to be consulted and listened to in the process. Doesn?t seem an unfair or far-fetched ideology to me.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From what I see > daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is > levelling off to more or less what it was before > the junction closure. The data will tell. How on earth can you state this when there is no data from before? As there will be no useable data to determine whether it's worse now or not I feel we should listen to the residents who live on EDG and the surrounding streets all of which are shouting from the rooftops that it is CONSIDERABLY worse than it was before and has not improved in the 'settling' time since. Given that they live there (and you, by your own admission, do not) - do you not feel you should perhaps listen to them? > If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just > have to wait and see what the traffic counts say. Of course I believe in data and evidence - that is properly, fairly and impartially obtained and not manipulated / fudged / plucked from thin air or with input from biased lobbyists.

Don't think you're going to get an answer Dulwichgirl82...

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They?ve not been put in illegally. They?ve > actually been put in thanks to a law. It?s argued > the council didn?t advise residents or solicit > opinion, either at all or not enough. That?s a > procedural matter and one I think any legal > adjudged may either not be concerned about or > think that such a matter is less important than > the measures put in place according to the powers > Southwark has. https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/threat-of-court-action-over-islington-people-friendly-streets-1-6871719 The claimants in legal proceedings happening in Islington over exactly the same situation believe differently. Quote from the article: "A 2018 High Court battle between Trail Riders and Fellowship and Wiltshire County Council set a precendent that consulatation is still necessary under ETROs." (Experimental Traffic Road Orders) Erik Pagano (resident who brought the case) said: "[ETROs} should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used to circumvent the normal consultation process."

If the planters have been put in illegally, then surely it would make more sense for residents to tear them out (and the signs etc). Then it's on Southwark to mount a legal case (rather than residents having to crowdfund and front huge costs to mount a case against the council), which presumably would fall through when it's revealed that they put them in illegally... DISCLAIMER, this is not a suggestion! Just a thought... ;-)

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Excellent work Dougie, thanks. > (I wasn't after names, just 'who'/which role in > the hierarchy) I can definitely say it wasn't a councillor - was a constitutional officer. FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Glad it will get debated, but presume this is > closed meeting? Will the public be able to view > the minutes of that meeting? Good question - I'll find out more details. What I do know is that it's a cabinet meeting via zoom at which I've been invited to do a 5 minute presentation. Problem is I don't think I can make it as I'm working at the time it's taking place. I had thought about trying to put together a video presentation that can be played - but I'd also thought maybe someone else could do the presentation instead of me. If anyone is up for it perhaps drop me a PM.

Yes I do know who closed it - I shan't name names on here - but the email I received: "I can confirm that I was dealing with another petition completely unrelated to this one and inadvertently ended the petition date for yours. My understanding at the time was, as it was going to the next Cabinet meeting after it achieved over 500 signatures this would be ok to do. Unfortunately that should not have happened in this incidence. I will re-instate the petition back to 21 December 2020 as originally arranged to allow people to sign the petition. I hope this has not caused any inconvenience. If it has, please accept my apologies."

Following the council manually overriding my petition timeline (that was due to run until 21st Dec) and closing it on 1st Oct, they have now re-instated it following my request for them to do so. There are, I am certain, a great number of ED and DV residents who are not aware of the existence of this petition - so if you know of anyone who lives or works in the area that is not in support of the road closures or just the way the council has gone about implementing the LTNs, I urge you to forward on the link for them to sign. Here?s a shortened link to make it easier for sharing: ?shorturl.at/beqvz? And the direct link to the petition: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049 There are 2448 signatures so far that have been garnered in just over 2 weeks - as the 500 signatures required for this to be presented at a cabinet meeting were met, the matter will be debated on 20 October at 4pm.

So the council have most certainly over-ridden the end date for my petition. It was the 21st Dec, they have shut it down today. You can tell it was a manual override because it says it ran from 1st Oct until the 1st Oct. gaining 2441 signatures in the process!

Actually just managed to get on, appears it is still live. Don?t know what that email meant!

I received an email today to say that the petition can be presented to the next cabinet meeting as it had over 500 signatures. Friday 20th Oct at 4pm although unfortunately I don?t think I can do it as I?m working. Rockets, you fancy a 5 minute presentation on a zoom cabinet meeting?! Interestingly, the petition was due to run from 18th Sept until the 21st Dec. I got an email earlier saying the petition has now completed as it has had 2441 signatures. I can?t verify whether the petition has been removed or not since the e-petitions website is not responding. But if they have removed it that surely is not cool? People were still signing it and with a ?support the road closures? petition on there now as well I can?t help but feel a little (more) cynical about the whole thing!

Completely ignored an email I sent to him and all other Cllrs also regarding the road closures. Helen Hayes got back to me within a week...