West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, ab29 said:

On the same note, why would universally hated so-called ltn be accepted?

You may hate it, but that doesn't mean it's universally hated. I would bet that it is a very small minority of people who support the square being removed and replace with a lane of queuing cars.

I didn't say that the handful of people who have been absolutely obsessed for more than 5 years about a 2 minute diversion from Townley Road to the Village, will ever accept it. In fact I think I said that the 'hatred' you talk about is bordering on pathological; which suggests the opposite.

What I did say is that there is zero chance of it being reversed due to a legal challenge. There are no grounds for a legal challenge.

Edited June 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You may hate it, but that doesn't mean it's universally hated. I would bet that it is a very small minority of people who support the square being removed and replace with a lane of queuing cars.

I didn't say that the handful of people who have been absolutely obsessed for more than 5 years about a 2 minute diversion from Townley Road to the Village, will ever accept it. In fact I think I said that the 'hatred' you talk about is bordering on pathological; which suggests the opposite.

What I did say is that there is zero chance of it being reversed due to a legal challenge. There are no grounds for a legal challenge.

No idea what this post is about.

Say, reopen the bridge in Dulwich Park:)

And stop waste my council tax money 🙂

Meaning I want to see the bridge in Dulwich Park open and available to everyone who visits Dulwich Park.

And I want to see road closuers across Southwark, Lambeth and the rest of London removed - they are harming pedestrians

[pebs]

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/lambeth-council-forced-scrap-ltn-31840982

Slightly off topic for which my apologies. Point is though councils like Lambeth and Southwark are initiating schemes and 'improvements' which often go against the wishes of local residents. Whether it's roads, parking or LTNs a lot of money could be saved by not spending budgets for the sake of it. Do they ever do zero based budgeting? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure they are necessarily going against the wishes of local residents (at least not the silent majority). There are often very noisy objections to attempts to rebalance the use of public space (to loosen the stranglehold of private cars dominating almost everywhere), but the majority of the Borough's residents do not have access to a car. There is a culture amongst many that assumes giving over say 80%+ of all public space to cars is the natural order, and not a choice, just as much as it is to widen pavements, create nicer pedestrian areas, or create space for people using a bicycle. 

I don't believe they spend very much on these schemes in terms of the total budget. Often they're self funding, and / or come with additional funding from either central government or the London authority.

Can't find any evidence that they do you zero based budgeting though: 

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/about-council/how-council-works/budgets-and-spending 

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

If the 'silent majority' determine not to engage in civic discussion, pointless as it often seems when dealing with councils deaf to opposition, then it is impossible to determine what their views are. Their only commonality is that they are silent. To suggest that if, say, 40% of an eligible population 'votes' and of those 60% vote one way, then the others who have not voted but are silent are in fact of the opposite view is simply statistically mad. 

[Sue]

19 hours ago, ab29 said:

Like, the bridge in Dulwich Park - closed for over a year - what is wrong with it? 

Whatever issue was there a year ago, it is now so much worst (=more expensive to fix)

There is a thread about the bridge elsewhere on the forum.

It is not economical to "fix" it. It has to be replaced.

There wasn't previously a bridge there at all, so I don't suppose replacing  it is near the top of the council's priorities. 

The park is not "used by everyone" (sorry, didn't quote enough of the original post), and the vast majority of those who use the park are quite capable of walking around the lake, as they did before the bridge was there.

I liked the bridge, and I liked feeding the ducks from it, but it's hardly on the same level  of importance as a road junction.

In any case, the money to replace it would not be coming from the same financial "pot".

Edited June 13 by Sue

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

If the 'silent majority' determine not to engage in civic discussion, pointless as it often seems when dealing with councils deaf to opposition, then it is impossible to determine what their views are. Their only commonality is that they are silent. To suggest that if, say, 40% of an eligible population 'votes' and of those 60% vote one way, then the others who have not voted but are silent are in fact of the opposite view is simply statistically mad. 

Well, many people vote in local elections. Not everyone bothers to respond to every consultation exercise, or continues to be extremely vocal about schemes long after they've been implemented.

The council have been clear about their policies around active travel, their intention to increase the number of people walking and cycling, and to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. They've implemented schemes in line with these policies and they've been repeatedly voted back in. So when I say 'silent majority', what I mean is, the majority of people who aren't obsessed and still vocal about individual schemes years after they've been established. 

It's easy to get the impression (from this forum  for example) that there are huge numbers of people who would like to see Dulwich square ripped up and replaced with a queue of idling cars, or who are furious about changes made to Sydenham Hill; But I guarantee this is not the case (both had support during consultation btw, but most people don't continue to think about them years later).

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's easy to get the impression (from this forum  for example) that there are huge numbers of people who would like to see Dulwich square ripped up and replaced with a queue of idling cars, or who are furious about changes made to Sydenham Hill; But I guarantee this is not the case (both had support during consultation btw, but most people don't continue to think about them years later).

Based on what exactly @Earl Aelfheah- a hunch -because every slightly more scientific consultation has suggested the exact opposite of what you claim? Given that is the only mechanism the council has given us to judge surely that is the bar?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Based on what exactly @Earl Aelfheah- a hunch -because every slightly more scientific consultation has suggested the exact opposite of what you claim? Given that is the only mechanism the council has given us to judge surely that is the bar?

And there is the rub. The fact is that there was majority support recorded for both schemes during consultation, and councillors have successfully stood for re-election since they were implemented, but years on, and following a non stop stream of misinformation, and general 'noise' its easy for people to lose sight of some of the basic facts. 

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

44 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council have been clear about their policies around active travel, their intention to increase the number of people walking and cycling, and to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles.

Any group that intends to implement policies around making people change their personal habits through coercion and not persuasion (nothing anyone does to avoid active travel is in any way illegal, or harms anyone other than themselves)  is fascist in nature and wholly despicable. Glad to see who's running their flags up that particular flagpole. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Any group that intends to implement policies around making people change their personal habits through coercion and not persuasion  (nothing anyone does to avoid active travel is in any way illegal, or harms anyone other than themselves) is fascist in nature and wholly despicable. Glad to see who's running their flags up that particular flagpole. 

This is ridiculous. Is it fascist to 'coerce' people out of cycling because they feel it's too dangerous? Why do you think that giving 80% of public space over to cars isn't a choice, (just the natural order), but say, building a segregated bike lane for example, is a choice (and is fascist)? You think the council have stopped you driving? What are you talking about?

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

nothing anyone does to avoid active travel is in any way illegal, or harms anyone other than themselves

Literally no one has said that 'avoiding active travel' is, or should be illegal. To suggest that driving a private car doesn't effect anyone else though is demonstrably untrue. All of our choices effect others people and the council, as the ones who have responsibility for allocating and maintaining public space, have to consider everyone and their competing demands.

The mentality of the 'war on motorists' brigade is incredible. In what sense could anyone seriously claim that the (minority) of private car owners in Southwark aren't being catered to adequately - aren't allocated enough space, or given enough infrastructure? 🤪

The fact that a small change to road layout at the junction of Calton avenue (involving a 2 minute diversion for private cars) is still being regularly ranted about half a decade on, really does tell you all you need to know. Cries of fascism, are just entitled nonsense. 

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And there is the rub. The fact is that there was majority support recorded for both schemes during consultation, and councillors have successfully stood for re-election since they were implemented, but years on, and following a non stop stream of misinformation, and general 'noise' its easy for people to lose sight of some of the basic facts. 

I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"?

On Dulwich LTN - Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative.

Sydenham Hill - Southwark consulted on the proposals in February and March 2020. Each of the measures was supported by the majority of those who responded.

[Rockets]

Oh dear @Earl Aelfheah. You have selectively plucked a response to a single question. Remember this was the consultation that didn't allow you to say no to the measures. The question response you have selectively plucked was whether respondents supported the aims of the Streets for People initiative which was a question that had diddly-squat to do with the specifics of the LTN. That's a huge reach to claim that is majority support for the LTN.

And I am not going to argue with you again about the Sydenham Hill consultation.

Maybe we should talk about all of the other consultations as well - do you have anything to say about those ones as the results were not at all in support were they?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't have anything to say about them, no. Like I said, these matters were settled years ago.

My point is simply that one should not assume that because we have heard repeatedly from a handful of noisy obsessives, (who object to all and any change), over many years, that it represents anything close to a settled, or majority view. 

Claims that the council are implementing schemes that no one wants, or is 'fascistic', should be treated with extreme scepticism (or justly, derision). 

As I said, the council who have made these apparently 'unpopular' decisions have usually been returned to office with bigger majorities.

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah you really need to take a look at the actual data rather than the headline infographics the council put out. Below is the reality of the report that you have used to chmapion the headline 55% stat you have quoted.

This headline hid a much more powerful stat that massively undermines your position. In the report, look at page 18...you will see this....

So you're absolutely wrong (again) - that 2021 consultation report actually showed majority opposition to the measures....it's there in black and orange.....anything to say about that?

Dulwich Village consultation report.pdf

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't have anything to say about them, no. Like I said, these matters were settled years ago.

But then you're happy to suggest (incorrectly) that the 2021 consultation report showed support for the measures.....hmmmmm

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not going over this again. You are obsessed. It was half a decade ago - drive round, it's a 2 minute diversion.

Is there a single change that the council or tfl have implemented that you haven't objected to in say the last 10 or 15 years? 

Edited June 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Funny how you dont want to go over it again when you've been shown to be wrong.

So without the Dulwich LTN consultation to prove your point you're now left with just the Sydenham Hill one. That's hardly compelling evidence against the weight of consultations where clearly respondents said no. 

Honestly...sometimes it's like watching a White House Oval Office meeting with a head of state Trump and Vance don't like waving "proof" which upon proper analysis is nothing of the sort.

[Penguin68]

50 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Claims that the council are implementing schemes that no one wants, or is 'fascistic', should be treated with extreme scepticism (or justly, derision). 

Wrong - firstly that they in fact are implementing schemes that, in the main, a majority of those impacted by the scheme have indicated being against, and have then gerrymandered the results to suggest the opposite, but secondly that, whereas they, and you, pray-in-aid fictions about active travel - and then claim they have some right to coerce people into making health initiative decisions, rather than  persuading them, in fact you and the other council cheerleaders know full well that this is all (well 99.99%) about driving income streams through fines and charges.

And one final thing, the cycling lobby cheerleaders would like you to think that cycling is the window to active travel and fitness - whereas the vast majority of active travel (and particularly in the broad Dulwich area) has been by walking. Sealing off the parks to monetise them is hardly encouraging this. Nor is allowing TfL to reduce bus frequencies (by allowing I mean of course not publicly resisting, or not much) And neither is making hugely available motorised bicycles, which rather subvert the active travel concept.

[malumbu]

Let's have a referendum on whether we pay tax.  Tick yes or no. The result would be a no.  It's daft thinking that a consultation is a referendum, and that in a consultation people will consider the big picture.  Most won't. They just look at self interest.  As my example on paying tax above.  I really hope that in 5 years people are not still complaining about the Dulwich LTN.

11 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Wrong - firstly that they in fact are implementing schemes that, in the main, a majority of those impacted by the scheme have indicated being against, and have then gerrymandered the results to suggest the opposite, but secondly that, whereas they, and you, pray-in-aid fictions about active travel - and then claim they have some right to coerce people into making health initiative decisions, rather than  persuading them, in fact you and the other council cheerleaders know full well that this is all (well 99.99%) about driving income streams through fines and charges.

And one final thing, the cycling lobby cheerleaders would like you to think that cycling is the window to active travel and fitness - whereas the vast majority of active travel (and particularly in the broad Dulwich area) has been by walking. Sealing off the parks to monetise them is hardly encouraging this. Nor is allowing TfL to reduce bus frequencies (by allowing I mean of course not publicly resisting, or not much) And neither is making hugely available motorised bicycles, which rather subvert the active travel concept.

Why should people need to be persuaded on the benefits of active travel?  It's a no brainer.  Back to self interest Vs bigger picture. But even then, surely, it is in your own self interest to have a healthier lifestyle.  But then our 'dependency' on the motor vehicle trumps rationale thought.

Edited June 13 by malumbu

[Rockets]

It's no wonder some truly believe that there was majority support for the LTNs when the council focuses only on the stats that validated its decision - the 55% support the aims of the Strretspace initiative was front and centre of the council's summation of the consultation yet no mention that most wanted it returned to its original state.

This is something the judge in the West Dulwich case was highly critical of - a manipulation of the results to present a misleading picture.

The problem is people believe what they are spoon-fed.

[Penguin68]

47 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Let's have a referendum on whether we pay tax.  Tick yes or no. The result would be a no

Actually work has been done on that. People accept taxation as necessary for a modern state to work. However if you allow people to choose what the tax would be spent on you do get different aportionments from those HMG (of whatever nature) chooses. You can even get people to opt in as it were for tax rises if they get the opportunity to allocate that rise. People are not actually against taxation per se. So, all work done that I know of says the answer wouldn't be no. Except yours, apparently. 

[Spartacus]

I love the spin 

"A consultation isn't a referendum" which is often cited but I think it comes with a sub text of "unless its in favour of what I want" 

Edited June 13 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

Silly post.  Like voting for more tax, most are likely to oppose.  Fortunately we don't do business through referendums, shame we didn't think about this in 2015/16

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually work has been done on that. People accept taxation as necessary for a modern state to work. However if you allow people to choose what the tax would be spent on you do get different aportionments from those HMG (of whatever nature) chooses. You can even get people to opt in as it were for tax rises if they get the opportunity to allocate that rise. People are not actually against taxation per se. So, all work done that I know of says the answer wouldn't be no. Except yours, apparently. 

No party went to the last GE with increasing tax in their manifesto. Up until the last few years tax burden has progressively reduced.  Lib Dems from time to time to improve public services but they haven't been in power for over a century (the former Liberal Party). One party doing the well in the polls are campaigning for significant tax reductions 

[Sue]

44 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Silly post.  Like voting for more tax, most are likely to oppose.  Fortunately we don't do business through referendums, shame we didn't think about this in 2015/16

No party went to the last GE with increasing tax in their manifesto. Up until the last few years tax burden has progressively reduced.  Lib Dems from time to time to improve public services but they haven't been in power for over a century (the former Liberal Party). One party doing the well in the polls are campaigning for significant tax reductions 

The Tories won an election many moons ago (early nineties?) because they promised to reduce tax.

Which they did.

Just look at the effects that had 🤬 when they had to cut back on vital things because they no longer had the money from tax to pay for them.

I don't recall many voters prior to that election  saying "ooh no, we need to continue paying loads of tax because we realise it goes on important things which affects us and our families" 🤬