LTN accident injuries

[first mate]

Groan, not this again. The same people that infer others are obsessed and driven by conspiracies then imply that anyone objecting to Southwark's imposition of CPZ and LTN or the effects of the same, must therefore be part of some right wing political group, whether Tory, Reform, or something more extreme.

There was no mention of LTNs or CPZ in the last local Labour manifesto, I would imagine they did not want to risk it as they were already aware of significant local objection. However, as Spartacus says, at the time and in the wake of Covid, the overarching concern was to send out a message to the Tories.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is not a quote from me. I did not say that.

Oh yes you did - its a bit early for pantomime season.

Honestly, the pack hunting from the usual suspects is so predictable.

I have been more than clear what I was questioning yet some, who claim to have read the report, cannot help clarify and then try to weaponise the very fast I dared ask a question.

Is it any wonder people dislike so much about the active travel lobby. 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And you've railed against 'putting words in people's mouths' whilst repeatedly quoting me as saying things I have not.

Then there is this of course...

  On 13/06/2025 at 11:59, Rockets said:

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

To which Earl responded....

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

 

 

Doh!

Edited July 11 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

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

This is a matter of fact. 55 per cent of those surveyed did say they supported the aims set out in Southwark’s ‘Streets for People’ initiative. I assume you’re not claiming otherwise? It’s also not what you quoted me as saying. You do understand that right? ‘Doh!’ Indeed.

I love that you’ve scoured the forum looking for a quote that you’ve misremembered and repeatedly misquoted, and then in desperation posted it anyway hoping no one notices.

🤣

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

I have been more than clear what I was questioning yet some, who claim to have read the report, cannot help clarify and then try to weaponise the very fast I dared ask a question.

Is it any wonder people dislike so much about the active travel lobby. 

Yeh ‘just asking honest questions’.  You’re obviously open minded about research you described as “LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery” without having read it. 

And of course, it isn’t just people calling out your bad faith nonsense, it has to be a shadowy ‘active travel lobby’. This is just conspiracy nonsense as usual. 

…and still no attempt to provide any evidence for your claims regarding congestion, pollution or road safety. Just the usual deflection.

Edited July 11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is a matter of fact. 55 per cent of those surveyed did say they supported the aims set out in Southwark’s ‘Streets for People’ initiative. I assume you’re not claiming otherwise? It’s also not what you quoted me as saying. You do understand that right? ‘Doh!’ Indeed.

I love that you’ve scoured the forum looking for a quote that you’ve misremembered and repeatedly misquoted, and then in desperation posted it anyway hoping no one notices.

But it was not signalling majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN was it? And that was the context in which you were using it. In fact, the consultation materially showed that there was majority opposition to the LTN. So you were wrong.

I am afraid you are the one who is deflecting. We can all see what you are doing and the more you try to argue about it the clearer your tactics become.

Look at the discussion on this thread.

I pose questions based on media reports and the abstract of Goodman's report.

You spin that to say how can I be critical if I haven't read the report.

You claim to have a copy of the report and I ask you whether my questions are answered by the report. You refuse to try to answer my original questions.

You then attack me again for not having read the report.

Do you see the pattern here?

 

Edited July 12 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

It's like playing chess with a pigeon - you can explain the nuances of the game as much as you want but the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board then strut around like it's won.

You’re not kidding 🤣

[first mate]

What a bizarre analogy. It does suggest that some of you approach this discussion as a game where the primary aim is to win. 

[Insuflo]

19 hours ago, first mate said:

 

as Spartacus says, at the time and in the wake of Covid, the overarching concern was to send out a message to the Tories.

What a bizarre summary. It does suggest that you know what was in the hearts and minds of the 3.5k voters who supported pro-LTN candidates in DV in 2022.

[first mate]

Quick fact check; Southwark Labour did not run on a pro LTN agenda.  A policy to increase LTNs and COZ was not mentioned in the manifesto. Not only that, within East Dulwich imposition of CPZ had been roundly rejected at consultation. 

Edited July 12 by first mate

[Rockets]

Spot on, Southwark Council went out of their way to avoid mentioning anything to do with LTNs and made it everything about a vote for Labour sent a message to Boris and the Tories.

[Insuflo]

So, what you’re saying is that LTNs were not a significant issue in DV ward in 2022? I’m happy with that. But it utterly undermines your position that LTNs are hugely unpopular.

[Rockets]

No, because the issues of that election were bigger than local issues...Labour made sure of it. I doubt they can pull that card in May....

If the Tories and LibDems had any sense one of them would withdraw and try to galvanise the vote against Labour.

[first mate]

@Insuflo No, in light of Tory mismanagement over Covid and subsequent fallout there were other issues to focus on. Surely you are not suggesting everyone voting Labour at the time were doing so to show support for LTNs? There was no mention in the manifesto of LTNs or CPZ as a central policy. What Labour did state up front was that they promised local residents would be put at the heart of decisions made about their area. Subsequently, the Dulwich Village LTN was imposed against overwhelming opposition- so that manifesto pledge was broken, almost immediately.

There was no mandate for LTN meddling, it was just done, some would say opportunistically. 

Edited July 12 by first mate

[Rockets]

It's going to be an interesting few months leading up to May...

..massive discontent with the Labour government

...potential civil-war in Southwark Labour 

...local councillors who have been upsetting many residents with their policies and,  in some cases, attitude 

...left-wing voters shifting to the Greens or others

But of course...the Lib Dems have been pro-LTN and Tories are, well, Tories.

At the end of the day how long have Labour run the local wards..too long probsbly...I do wonder if there is appetite for some change but is there a viable alternative. Clearly Southwark will always be led by Labour but us residents need more opposition to hold council leadership accountable. The position Labour have held at Southwark HQ is not good for the residents.

 

[Insuflo]

Oh now I see. It’s next year that the righteous wrath of the embattled motorist will be felt? Righto.

[Spartacus]

7 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Oh now I see. It’s next year that the righteous wrath of the embattled motorist will be felt? Righto.

Either that or people will vote reform to send a message to the Labour government, much like local elections across the rest of the UK just saw. 

[first mate]

Heaven forbid, but you have a point. With Labour in central government it may feel 'safe' to shake things up a bit. I wish we had some decent independent candidates, preferably not those hoping to use the role as a stepping stone to greater things.

[Insuflo]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Either that or people will vote reform to send a message to the Labour government, much like local elections across the rest of the UK just saw. 

I do not see that happening in DV, in Southwark or in London as a whole. Not remotely.

If any parties capitalise on discontent with this government, it will be the Greens and the Lib Dems.

[Spartacus]

There's nothing as unpredictable as a voter. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

What’s the next set of local elections got to do with reductions in injury rates resulting from LTNs?

Edited July 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Keep up Earl, you have obviously not read all the previous comments leading up to this point 😅

[Earl Aelfheah]

So nothing?

Almost as though the usual monomaniac has made some silly comments and when called out on them, sent things wildly off topic through a series of deflections. 🥱 

Edited July 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Sorry @Earl Aelfheah is that aimed at me, someone else or are you talking to yourself? 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't know. Who took a thread on the latest research showing a clear and significant drop in accidents and injuries following the implementation of LTNs, rubbished it without even reading it, and then having embarrassed themselves, quickly deflected the conversation onto whether or not there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN (via some false quotes)?

It's almost as though this is a repeated pattern, by someone who makes it impossible to discuss roads and transport without using it as an opportunity to return to their monomaniacal obsession over a 5 year old road filter. 

Edited July 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah as usual, there is an alternative version of events

- I posed questions about the methodology linked to the report and resulting exlcusive media coverage provided in the Guardian

- you took umbrage to me asking questions without having read a full copy of the report (due to it being behind a paywall)

- you claimed to have a copy of said report

- I asked you to see if you could answer the questions on the basis of you having a copy of said report

- you refused, I am sure this led some to suspect you may not have a copy of the report as you claimed.

The irony of your above claim of course is that this thread is about a report analysing the LTNs over a period beyond 5 years - perhaps you think that the OP should not have shared it in that case - you cant have it both ways, choosing when to selectively discuss things and then claiming too much time has elapsed when someone else does.

It looks to many that there are some here who refuse to discuss anything that doesn't sit within their particular ideological purview or when they see something that doesn't put LTNs into anything other than a shining light! Suddenly then it is...move along folks, nothing to see here.

It's ever so slightly hypocritical.

Edited Tuesday at 20:17 by Rockets