Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DuncanW - really, come on. Those estates are not LTNs - that's a narrative many of the pro-lobby have tried to sell but no-one is buying it.


If you heard the testimony from Luciana, the lady who joined the Dulwich Hill ward virtual meeting some months ago from the Lordship Lane estate, and heard the hugely negative impact the congestion caused by the LTNs outside her flat was having on her and her family I would hope you would take a different view. Even some of the councillors on the call looked shocked when she recounted her son's health problems and how bad the congestion was due to the displacement from the LTNs.


And you're right, next May seems to be the only opportunity for those who think these measures are unfair to have their voices (finally) heard by the council. It will be interesting to see what happens but if they do loose some seats it won't be the only time in recent history that Labour has lost seats on the basis of them failing to listen to the people who vote for them and ploughing their own, misguided, furrow.

The unplanned LTNs brought into Dulwich are in very wealthy, very white, high income and high car ownership areas.


With the exception of Gilkes which is gated due to a temporary closure becoming permanent to please residents in 2 mill houses as a very wealthy residents association the ?LTN?s you mention are traffic free areas built as such in a planned and consulted way and were not forced upon residents via an emergency order.


East Dulwich Grove, Grove Vale and LL all have high density residential buildings and represent a mixed community. Why were Court, Calton, Melbourne picked, why is Gilkes a gated road.


This conflating of estates with the Covid LTNs is a way of excusing the fact that LTNs benefit the wealthiest in Dulwich and East Dulwich.


Actually the way a Council works does become a dictatorship...do you think your councillor has a vote on every issue or is policy decided by a small group?

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fair point.

> Though I think it?s true to say congestion at that

> junction predates the recently introduced LTNs.



It's a lot worse since the LTNs went in but, according to our councillors, that's what the A roads were designed to do - soak up the traffic and pollution others don't want.

According to the councillor I voted for in Goose Green Ward, if traffic and pollution is not reduced over all of Dulwich the LTN experiment has failed and ?Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution?


ED Grove, 3 schools, 1 health centre, 2 nurseries.


Southwark?s own monitoring


ED Grove has an increase in traffic of 25-36%


Independent monitoring ED Grove 59ug NOx way above the WHO safety limit.


So...it?s going well then?

I?m not conflating anything. I?m arguing that your claim the communities living in Croxted, EDG and LL are the poorest in the borough, is false.


And the same about LB Southwark being a dictatorship. Of course there is a leadership group that steers the council. That doesn?t equate to dictatorship.


And the party may well lose seats, they haven?t always controlled this borough, even in recent times. That is how democracy works. You can?t have it both ways?

Trouble is all too often the chat descends in to 'well people just shouldn't drive' or 'get rid of your car' or whatever and by not saying you've got an interest in keeping your road quiet because it's closed, it's then disingenuous to argue with someone like heart block who says they live on east dulwich grove. We've all seen how bad the traffic can be now surely.

I'm not sure it would change that much tbh. As I see it (lived experience, yes, and in this particular area rather than a London wide thing), the increased journey time/congestion and resultant pollution locally more than offsets the few short journeys that might have been replaced by active travel (given previously high active travel in the area). I think overall/ net pollution has probably increased ( as opposed to an overall reduction, the idea that the increase on "boundary" roads is exceeded by the decrease by drivers based in "in-LTN roads"). So regardless of the inequity issue - not OK to pollute boundary roads at the expense of LTN roads (which I still feel strongly about - ), I still think there's a problem, and my approach to the discussion would be the same.


How do you think the discussion would change?

Well if pollution from a busy road affects everyone in an area then...we are are all affected whichever road we live in.

So if pollution rises in total then we are all affected adversely and I guess the reverse would be true.


But I don't know how car fumes spread. I wouldn't like to guess.

Everything Duncan..everything. So you live in an LTN, probably in a house with a garden and own at least one car I guess. Good on yer lad, it?s that way of thinking that has made Engerland the marvellous country it is today.


If you are wealthy you can move into an LTN, if you are poor ... you have no choice but to stay living on your polluted ?main? road.

So I've been lurking a while, and I'd like to collect together my "favourite" anti LTN arguments to illustrate their sheer absurdity.


* Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge.


* Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism


* Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs.


* ...as was East Dulwich grove


* Cyclists are to be despised


* Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators.


* In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people.


* Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect)


* While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons


* We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing


* More traffic will lead to less pollution


* Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share.


* Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people


* An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits.


* Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have


* You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?)


* All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear.


* And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s:



Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's worrying as it smacks of influencing young

> minds to be the councils voice.

>

> Last time I heard of this sort of behaviour was

> pre 1939 in Germany where school children were

> used to report non conformation to the party line

> ...

>

> Can't wait till the leader of the council

> publishes his book "My Fight"



Did I get them all?

I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much much worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not own the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless you've lived on one of the main roads long enough to compare the before and after the LTNs you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, first

> post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee!



What's myopic about it Rockets?


Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people write and take them at their word?


Is it myopic to call out holocaust trivialisation?


Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see it is because you are blind"?




ab29 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much much

> worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not own

> the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless

> you've lived on one of the main roads long enough

> to compare the before and after the LTNs you

> really have no idea what you are talking about.



The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a point where traffic was incredibly low. The traffic would be higher now than just before, and moreso because people aren't using public transport as much due to covid. Even if your observations are accurate, your conclusions that LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct.


But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on, propose something that will reduce car use. Not something vague, or impossible. Something real and concrete.

Why did the Goodman/Aldred report about drops in traffic injuries, conspicuously avoid any mention of the boroughs which do not have LTNs.


Because.....they had the same drop of injuries as the LTN boroughs over the same period.


Mmmhhhh could there be another reason over the 18 months?

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic,

> first

> > post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee!

>

>

> What's myopic about it Rockets?

>

> Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people

> write and take them at their word?

>

> Is it myopic to call out holocaust

> trivialisation?

>

> Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't

> count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see

> it is because you are blind"?

>

>

>

> ab29 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much

> much

> > worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not

> own

> > the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless

> > you've lived on one of the main roads long

> enough

> > to compare the before and after the LTNs you

> > really have no idea what you are talking about.

>

>

> The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a

> point where traffic was incredibly low. The

> traffic would be higher now than just before, and

> moreso because people aren't using public

> transport as much due to covid. Even if your

> observations are accurate, your conclusions that

> LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct.

>

> But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on,

> propose something that will reduce car use. Not

> something vague, or impossible. Something real and

> concrete.



It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN narrative that many of us have been dissecting and depositioning for a very long time on here.


By all means feel free to join the debate but

you claim you have been lurking for a while so you will be well aware that many on the anti- side of the debate have provided their own suggestions for solutions and gone to great lengths to answer many of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back in the thread.


Out of interest, and in the interests of balance, is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think is absurd?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...