! Dulwich LTN violence

[Rockets]

Angelina Wrote:

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

> That's a LOT of police presence, especially since

> the two men had left.

>

> Awful for the children to experience.

I think the police responded in numbers because the two aggressors had also threatened the people outside and inside the cafe with knives.

[mrwb]

They can just get off and push via the pavement 10m perfectly legally, Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 34? Pushing is not driving!

Surprised motor bikes don't get around the LTN by doing this already to be honest?

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Why not allow mopeds below a certain CC through

> these roadblocks. In time they'll be electric and

> not as noisy. On the whole I think two-wheels,

> whether motorised or not, are much less of a

> problem in terms of congestion and pollution than

> four-wheeled vehicles (even the leccy ones take up

> a bigger physical footprint on the road, after

> all). If cycles, which can go at a fair lick, are

> allowed then why not Vespas, etc? Are LTNs about

> pollution, congestion, safety, sending signals?

> Hmmm

[Nigello]

I think mopeds, etc. should be allowed. They are nippy, more accessible in terms of purchasing than cars, more and more likely to be electric and take less space and emit far less than most petrol and diesel vehicles. By being restricive on cars teh road blocks are not taking into account such forms of transport which are at least helping drive down emissions and congestion. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. (I do not not own and never have owned a Vespa-type bike so not talking from a biased point of view.)

[Rockets]

I think the issue is you cannot mix pedestrians and moving vehicles of any type - there are problems with pedestrians and cyclists mingling in the DV junction at the moment as no-one really knows who has right of way and many cyclists are approaching the junction at speed along Calton.

[malumbu]

So hands up, I saw this as another anti-LTN thread - it could have been better titled and I always like a brief explanation rather than posting a link.

But it has morphed into exactly that, yet another anti-LTN thread (and I am surprised that someone hasn't accused Southwark of encouraging criminality....

Rocks - I'm not going to count but I expect you have now posted 1000s of times on the subject. I genuinely hope you do have other interests in life.

And concerning the last post, perhaps footpaths, bridal ways and any other routes not designed for motorised transport, but accessible to mopeds etc have also added to crime. Really??

[JohnL]

Encouraging "the mob" seems to be a thing these days.

The government is happy with protestors in the road (who are probably morally right but legally wrong) being physically removed by motorists who want to get past. I guess some feel they are just as entitled to remove LTNs (that aren't people) and drive through.

[heartblock]

It wasn't an LTN thread until someone who is pro-LTNs made it one. It was alerting the forum of a nasty incident. You make a bed...then you lie in it..

[malumbu]

I've just reread the thread from the start. There was no mention what actually happened. Without reading the article this was not clear from the thread. It could have been better titled and explained. You were the first to say that this was not linked to the LTN, any casual reader would have thought that it was. You posted quite reasonably but others perhaps should do what I did, ie reread the thread, and think about how quick they were to condemn me. I should have just liked Goldilocks posts and got on with my housework. I've posted before all this pro and anti LTN rhetoric is not helpful. My position is I want to reduce the number of motorised vehicles on the road.