Are PCN's being used as money-making exercises in London - the AA thinks so....

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha, the bit you missed off was that you were responding to a question to back-up your assertion that there was majority support for the LTNs. What you actually said was "majority support recorded for both schemes during consultation" and when challenged you presented the 55% stat - which was, as you might say, objectively false.

This is pretty desperate. I doubt anyone cares, but as you keep relentlessly referring back to it... I said in June, in reference to two separate schemes it was being claimed were unpopular, that:

Quote

there was majority support recorded for both schemes during consultation, and councillors have successfully stood for re-election since they were implemented,

When you asked what I meant, I clarified:

Quote

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.

Are you still disputing the Sydenham Hill one too?

Re. the LTN, there were several different consultation exercises that relate to it (from memory around 4 or 5 at least), so yes, probably I should have been more specific in my original comment. But it was not remotely 'aggressive' and it was not untrue -  it arguably lacked detail, which I provided when asked for clarification. It's worth noting that the 'streets for people' consultation was Southwark's largest ever consultation. It was the wider initiative that the LTN scheme was part of, and its aims (supported by a majority) were largely met.

This is very different to making a stream of demonstrably unevidenced, and objectively false statements, which are not clarified or corrected when challenged. There are frankly too many to go through, but from the top of my head, examples include you stating that:

• The Dulwich filter increased crime, when crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average
• There is increased road danger, when data shows a reduction in collisions and serious injuries.
• That there is increased pollution across the area, when local air quality monitoring demonstrates there to have been significant falls.

The point is, and it's demonstrated again on this thread, that rather than ever admit an error, you double down or deflect. My one loosely worded comment - quickly clarified, is literally all you've got, and you have referenced it repeatedly, any time you're challenged on a matter of fact and don't want to admit having made a ‘mistake’. It's a bit sad.

When you drive along, or 'cut across', an active bus lane, you are liable to be fined. Most people would take that on the chin, perhaps, understandably feel a bit annoyed about it. But they would accept some responsibility and move on, at least if they're an adult. Again, you search out dubious sources of information and / or cherry pick anything you can find online to convince yourself you're not at fault. It's really very, very childish and extremely boring.

The bus lane is clearly marked. You got caught breaking the rules. There's no conspiracy. It's a fair cop. Almost a year later, it might just be time to put on your big boy pants and accept it. You're not a freedom fighter, sticking it to the man. You're just relentlessly moaning about getting caught out on a local internet forum.

Edited Tuesday at 21:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Earl said "When you drive along, or 'cut across', an active bus lane, you are liable to be fined". 

You now seem to be shifting your argument. You now accept that Rockets as likely 'cut across' or as he put it, clipped, the bus lane as he turned left. This is pretty clearly an accidental consequence of a manoeuvre to turn into another street. It just feels very different from driving along a bus lane.  Yes, a fine is made because cameras cannot exercise discretion, but at appeal the human end can - if they want to.  It feels like Southwark will only waive a fine if they absolutely have to; - of course that fits with their stated agenda to make driving as difficult as possible. TFL just seems a more 'human' in its approach.

I guess it boils down to whether we think every single accidental infringement of a 'rule' should be punIshed - an £80 fine is not peanuts. Clearly, if you are fanatically anti -car you will celebrate each and every fine as a means towards an end. Others might feel an accidental and momentary lapse should not be treated in the same way as, say clear, deliberate rule- breaking ( so long as that lapse has not caused injury or worse).  But in this instance the accidental and the deliberate breach carry the same penalty.

 

Edited Tuesday at 18:19 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

You now seem to be shifting your argument

Nope. Read before you respond.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

This is pretty clearly an accidental consequence of a manoeuvre to turn into another street.

He’s never going to marry you.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, a fine is made because cameras cannot exercise discretion, but at appeal the human end can

Yes, it did go to appeal. The human judged that he was driving in the bus lane. You can actually read their response above!

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

It feels like Southwark will only waive a fine if they absolutely have to

Again, they waive thousands, as previously pointed out.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

TFL just seems a more 'human' in its approach.

People defending Rocks refer to them as TF Hell on this thread, but sure, they’re both cool and awful depending on the point you want to make.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

you will celebrate each and every fine

I have not of course ‘celebrated each and every fine’, or any fine. But after almost a year of Rocks winging and spinning up conspiracy theories I am certainly not joining his embarrassing pity party.

Edited Tuesday at 19:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

44 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's worth noting that the 'streets for people' consultation was Southwark's largest ever consultation at the time, with 55% of respondents supporting it's aims.

But clearly nothing to do with the Dulwich Village LTN consultation....to which respondents, overwhelmingly, opposed the measures.

 

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

But clearly nothing to do with the Dulwich Village LTN consultation....to which respondents, overwhelmingly, opposed the measures. 

Yes, it was clearly to do with the Dulwich LTN. It was the wider initiative that the LTN scheme was part of. The consultation (Southwark's largest ever) showed majority support for the aims set out under the ‘Streets for People’ strategy, which included things like improving road safety, reducing the amount of cut-through traffic etc. The LTN was designed to, and did, contribute to meeting those aims. You seem to think the consultations took the form of a single survey which amounted to a yes/no referendum. It is more complicated and has been discussed to death.

And again:

“The point is, and it's demonstrated again on this thread, that rather than ever admit an error, you double down or deflect. My one loosely worded comment - quickly clarified, is literally all you've got, and you have referenced it repeatedly, any time you're challenged on a matter of fact and don't want to admit having made a ‘mistake’. It's a bit sad.”

Edited Tuesday at 22:03 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is very different to making a stream of demonstrably unevidenced, and objectively false statements, which are not clarified or corrected when challenged. There are frankly too many to go through, but from the top of my head, examples include you stating that:

• The Dulwich filter increased crime, when crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average
• There is increased road danger, when data shows a reduction in collisions and serious injuries.
• That there is increased pollution across the area, when local air quality monitoring demonstrates there to have been significant falls in NO2.

@Earl Aelfheah honestly, I don't want to bore people with having to correct you but time and time again you seem to interpret what people say to suit your own narrative/agenda and willfully misrepresent what they say. This is what I have the biggest problem with. Often what you claim people say bears no resemblance to what was actually said.

Let's take this as an example:

The Dulwich filter increased crime, when crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average

What I actually said was that since the filter went in certain types of crime on the surrounding streets have gone up. Which they have. Which is fact.

You may not like it but please try to be accurate from now onwards as what you have claimed I have said is a long way from what I was actually saying.

 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I guess it boils down to whether we think every single accidental infringement of a 'rule' should be punIshed - an £80 fine is not peanuts. Clearly, if you are fanatically anti -car you will celebrate each and every fine as a means towards an end. Others might feel an accidental and momentary lapse should not be treated in the same way as, say clear, deliberate rule- breaking ( so long as that lapse has not caused injury or worse).  But in this instance the accidental and the deliberate breach carry the same penalty.

And this is exactly the point a lot of people miss as they tell everyone "them be the rules". The point is whether the council are deliberately going out of their way to create places where it becomes easier to infringe and then monetise that spot. Certainly a lot of people think they do and the AA is accusing councils of doing just this.

(BTW it was a £65 fine that jumped to £130 but look how the council words their letters - you can see why so many people just pay up the AA alluded to this issue too)

You can pay the discount charge of £65.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter.
You can pay £130.00 within 28 days of the date shown on your PCN.
You can formally challenge your PCN by using an Enforcement Notice form. The vehicle's owner will automatically
receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of the date shown on it. The form offers you the
chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £130.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please
do not write to us again but wait until the Enforcement Notice form arrives

When I read posters refer to me as "very, very childish", suggesting it's time to "put the big boy pants on" or that I am indulging in some sort of "pity party" I do laugh and wonder whether I am not actually the childish one here! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

What I actually said was that since the filter went in certain types of crime on the surrounding streets have gone up.

I’m not interested in re litigating this here. But this is not all you said on crime. 

And what about your claims about pollution? 

Edited Tuesday at 21:56 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

52 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

1 hour ago, first mate said:

It feels like Southwark will only waive a fine if they absolutely have to

Again, they waive thousands, as previously pointed out.

Most of which were not of the discretionary type I refer to, a point you have deliberately ignored. The thousands you mention were repaid because Southwark literally had no choice as they were down to internal errors and maladministration- a completely different matter.

For someone that repeatedly accuses others of twisting, turning and deflecting (as well as lying, of course) you make a pretty good fist of the same.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets If you want me to go back and dig out all the false and completely unevidenced statements you’ve made I can, but it’s very boring. Perhaps easier would be to simply ask where you’ve ever accepted a ‘mistake’. Just once?

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

Most of which were not of the discretionary type I refer to, a point you have deliberately ignored. The thousands you mention were repaid because Southwark literally had no choice as they were down to internal errors and maladministration- a completely different matter.

This is not true. Again, you’ve fallen for Rockets kicking up dust. Southwark publish figures for successful appeals annually. The admin error you’re referring to happened this year and is not included in the most recently published figures.

Edited Tuesday at 19:42 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Are you seriously asking me this?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

People defending Rocks refer to them as TF Hell on this thread, but

Please cite where I have ever said this?

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And what about your claims about pollution? 

Ok........I said I didn't want to bore people but that was in relation to the increases in pollution recorded (and published as part of their report) by Southwark council after the implementation of the OHS changes to the junction of DV and Calton (in around 2017/2018 I believe) when it was still open to traffic. Southwark's own monitoring showed pollution increased.

And before you ask let me put the record straight on your third claim:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is increased road danger, when data shows a reduction in collisions and serious injuries.

This was in relation to risk (both perceived and real) to pedestrians from cyclists through the DV junction once cars had been removed. I made the point that when it was a vehicular junction there was an order to it - cars flowed, then they stopped, pedestrians crossed and that since the road was closed to vehicles and it was made a cycle lane that the order had been lost and it was far more of a free for all.

Again a long way from what you claim I said.

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The admin error you’re referring to happened this year and is not included in the most recently published figures.

There have been a lot of admin errors recently.....some think this is because Southwark is only concerned about the money-making element of these measures.

[first mate]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It's worth noting that the 'streets for people' consultation was Southwark's largest ever consultation at the time, with 55% of respondents supporting

Earl, it is disingenuous to use the results of a borough-wide consultation on a raft of issues and interventions, as the counter response to a highly local and issue specific consultation. If you want to understand the views of those living in a specific area on a specific issue, then which route is likely to be more accurate, one which is area cohort and one issue specific, or something much broader, bringing in views from all over the borough?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/11/2025 at 19:49, Rockets said:

Ok........I said I didn't want to bore people but that was in relation to the increases in pollution recorded (and published as part of their report) by Southwark council after the implementation of the OHS changes to the junction of DV and Calton (in around 2017/2018 I believe) when it was still open to traffic. Southwark's own monitoring showed pollution increased.

That is not true.

You’ve actually suggested that the LTN has made pollution worse more than once. But in a couple of examples I can be bothered to find, you said:

Quote

LTNs make congestion and pollution worse and will go down in history as one of mankinds most bluntest instrument and stupid idea, dreamt up and propped up by people who put ideology ahead of commonsense, logic and pragmatism (and were invariably linked to the cycle lobby. I do think people will look back and say, what on earth were they thinking....it was bleedingly obvious what was going to happen...traffic wouldn't evaporated it would merely take a different route (especially in areas where public transport is poor) this is causing more congestion and pollution.

and...

On 12/09/2025 at 14:55, Rockets said:

I still stand by my comment about LTNs making congestion and pollution worse.

The air monitoring data is clear that pollution has massively improved. So this is simply not true.

On road danger at the junction, you did say the junction was more dangerous now for pedestrians than it was previously:

On 13/12/2024 at 18:30, Rockets said:

And yes,  Earl I would argue with you that for pedestrians that junction is now more dangerous than it was when it was open to cars.

But that's not true either. The data shows the opposite and this was pointed out to you.

When challenged and provided with the data on both these claims (and others you've made) demonstrating that they are objectively wrong, you've doubled down or deflected.

And this is what you're doing again.

The fact is that nearly a year ago you got a fine after being caught driving in a bus lane (or 'across a bus lane' if you prefer). This is easily avoidable. Yes it sucks. But you're just incapable of admitting error. It's always double down, deflect, claim conspiracy. It's so, so boring.

Edited 19 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah all you're doing is validating the very point I was making. Thank you. I stand by everything I said but only in the context of the discussion it was said in! ;-)

Now I am going to go and "put my big boy pants on". ;-)

46 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That is not true.

It is because the Southwark reports showed pollution increased after those changes. You cannot deny that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

all you're doing is validating the very point I was making.

You're quite wrong. You're actually just demonstrating your inability to ever accept an error. You've made statements about pedestrian safety, pollution and crime - All of which there are good data for and which demonstrate those claims are objectively false. 

You've deflected from the topic again on this thread, by first misrepresenting something I said, and then using it to re litigate all this other nonsense.

And why? Because you've spent nearly a year refusing to accept any responsibility for a fine that was issued quite properly.

Edited Tuesday at 22:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I just knew you would have to have the last say….;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/11/2025 at 20:46, Rockets said:

the Southwark reports showed pollution increased after those changes. You cannot deny that.

If you’re referring to the implementation of the LTN (?), the modelling done pre-implementation (commissioned by the council) forecast a reduction in pollution. The pollution monitoring post implementation has shown significant improvements in air quality.

If you want to winge about your fine for another year, please try and at least keep it to this one thread so that we don’t have to keep hearing about it across the whole section.

Edited yesterday at 05:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

No @Earl Aelfheah you're doing what you always do - not reading things properly, taking things people post out of context and then creating a false narrative.

The intervention I have always referred to in this regard was before the LTN was put in place. It was during the OHS implementation when the junction was still open to vehicles (around 2017/18). The council did local monitoring around the junction and published the results in their report and the results showed there had been an increase in pollution around the junction post implementation. I suspect it was the last time the council did localised monitoring of one of their interventions as it showed they had made pollution worse as they had created congestion, they then pivoted for "area wide" monitoring on a number of bars for "success" of the LTNs.

And what happened when the DV LTN went in - congestion increased along Dulwich Village? So it doesn't take a genius to work out that if pollution increased when congestion did during OHS implementation then it must have done post DV LTN - it's just the council weren't publishing local pollution data as they did post OHS.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/11/2025 at 07:20, Rockets said:

...it doesn't take a genius to work out that if pollution increased when congestion did during OHS implementation then it must have done post DV LTN - it's just the council weren't publishing local pollution data as they did post OHS.

But it didn't. We have air monitoring data that shows that pollution dropped. Your 'it must have done' assumption can be (and has been) objectively tested and is objectively wrong.

On 05/11/2025 at 07:20, Rockets said:

The intervention I have always referred to in this regard was before the LTN was put in place.

This is just completely untrue. You've said the LTN increased pollution. Just two examples are quoted above (see your comment on 12 Sept).

Edited 19 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Oh @Earl Aelfheah.........where's that facepalm emoji....

[Sue]

Surely this thread has long ago run its course?

Can't you just agree to disagree?

[Rockets]

@Sue yes @Earl Aelfheah has managed to batter me into submission as well.....I just can't be bothered anymore...it's pointless...they take the conversation in circles regurgitating the same out of context narrative - it's relentless. And yes, I agree that I disagree with the majority of what they say!

[Sue]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

@Sue yes @Earl Aelfheah has managed to batter me into submission as well.....I just can't be bothered anymore...it's pointless...they take the conversation in circles regurgitating the same out of context narrative - it's relentless. And yes, I agree that I disagree with the majority of what they say!

Rockets, you cannot put all the blame on Earl Aelfheath.

It is not just them who is taking the conversation round in circles, is it?

You are both just repeating the same old stuff, and it is incredibly boring.

The problem is that as soon as one of you stops posting, the other one will crow that they have "won".

So you have both dug yourselves into a hole, it seems to me.

Surely you could both just agree to stop discussing this? Because it is already on page 5, and if you don't it will just go on for ever.

And sad people like me will keep on reading it and rolling their eyes 🤣

[Earl Aelfheah]

Totally fair Sue. My apologies, got drawn in again 🤦‍♂️ 🤣

[DulvilleRes]

I actually think Earl has done us all a public service here. For years Rockets pumped out factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and because of Earl's diligent work, he has been properly and comprehensively fact-checked. Long may it continue.