Rockets

@malumbu I completely understand the benefits of active travel, I also understand your point on tactics being used to try to get people out of cars. But what if the interventions deployed thus far are just increasing congestion and pollution and the oft-celebrated increases in cycling are being propped up by people jumping on Lime bikes instead of walking a and delivery riders on souped up e-bikes. To try and get it back on track just look at what we are talking about- Ryedale being closed to through traffic to try to manage the increased flow of traffic caused by the Dulwich LTN displacement. There is very little evidence that these measures do what those who support them promised. If all you're doing is chasing the displacement (which is exactly what is happening on Ryedale and a resident on here admits that) then the approach is failing. What is happening on Ryedale is an admission the LTNs have not worked. Maybe it is, in fact, my knowledge of when to use primary position which means I have only had a couple of hairy moments on my bike over the years. Maybe it is because I cycle acutely aware of when other road users may struggle to see me and cycle accordingly. Maybe It is because I don't cycle thinking I am the only road user that matters. Maybe it is because I obey all the rules that apply to me as a cyclist.

The council had to make it a bus gate else the buses would not be able to use Etherow Street as a bus stand. Clearly buses pose less of a danger to school users than other vehicles!

@Earl Aelfheah you seem to like to try to claim the interventions are getting people out of their cars. Given what is happening on Underhill or Ryedale the jury would seem to be out on that...what the interventions are clearly doing is displacing traffic from one road to another. As @Moondoox said, traffic on their road (Ryedale) increased due to the interventions. If the active travel policy implemented does nothing more than displaces traffic from one road to another then it is a failure, especially if it results in increased congestion and pollution.

@Earl Aelfheah London traffic peaked around 1999 and has been in decline ever since - by 2011 it had dropped by 11% from its peak and has continued it's downward path ever since.

Have you been cycling or cycling for commuting for long? It's interesting - I do think there is a generation of cyclists who have been conditioned to believe that cycling is dangerous and that the only way to make it safe is to have dedicated infrastructure. I can honestly say I can think of two instances where I nearly came a cropper due to bad driving and I was doing a lot of miles. I actually think the cycling lobby, by the way they have pitted bike vs car, have created a perceptual fear that is far worse than reality. And, rather conversely, have created a generation of cyclists who think the rules of the road do not apply to them. No that is not what I am saying, what I am pointing out is that the numbers of vehicles and traffic flows have been declining for years (long before the first LTN) yet congestion is getting worse and worse and is as bad as it has ever been. With that congestion comes increased pollution and I think TFL loses sight that the No.1 objective of active travel is to cut pollution yet many of their interventions (which seemed to be wholly focused on placating the cycle lobby) are actually increasing pollution. The London Assembly meeting was fascinating in that regard when the chair had to remind the TFL spokespeople that they cannot answer every question about congestion with an excuse based on affirmative action for active travel.

Congestion should be reducing as vehicular traffic has been declining in London for years and years. But at the same time you say you live on a road made busier by the interventions (Ryedale) and that road is the one where residents have had to lobby to get it turned into an LTN due to the increase in traffic, and no doubt pollution. But you still think that is a price worth paying (maybe I should ask your neighbours on Dunstan's if they feel the same way! ;-)) The notion that cycling was not safe before infrastructure is utter nonsense - I used to take routes that used plenty of back streets to wind my way to West London and it was wonderfully pleasant - granted keep your wits about you around the Battersea Park roundabout and the mini-roundabout hell on North End Road and it was a breeze. The only horrible thing was losing a pedal in a torrential downpour miles from home one night!

@Moondoox you seem to be avoiding the displacement issue somewhat which clearly is the issue which has caused this problem on your road. Well, a good start would be not to put things in place that don't make it any better - or be honest about the impact the interventions are having rather than trying to bury the reality. Congestion in London is not going to be solved by cycling, in fact, there is growing evidence it is getting worse on the basis of the provision of cycle infrastructure. And I speak as a cyclist who was able to cycle across London every day without the need for dedicated cycle infrastructure! London is not Amsterdam - they are the polar opposites in terms of cities in size, scale, topology and historical development.

As I said @exdulwicher I was wondering if it might have been a splinter group from Tyre Extinguishers or someone with similar ideological beliefs. Yes it may have been bored yoofs but the fact @malumbu reports it has been happening for some weeks suggests it is a concerted set of attacks. I do hope someone has some doorbell footage to help identify the vandals and bring them to justice. Unfortunately, if it does turn out to be some sort of protest against cars it goes to show why some of us were saying that people (and many posters on this forum) should not have been condoning what TE were doing - no form of random acts of vandalism can be justified - no matter what the cause.

@malumbu no need to be rude - that last post breaks forum rules doesn't it?

But, on the basis of what you said, they also increase congestion and pollution for other residents don't they? Are you not robbing Peter to pay Paul? How do you feel for the residents of St Dunstan's who may cycle but now are going to have more congestion and pollution so you can have a quiet road or a cycleway that doesn't lead anywhere in particular? Doesn't that seem a little ludicrous? I feel for you because you had more traffic thrust upon you by the council rolling out the LTNs but I am sure when you and your neighbours went to the council about it all they said was "do you want your road closed". These are the real nudge tactics the council employs and it is shameful and disgraceful. But do you really believe that these interventions are encouraging people not to drive? All they have done over the last few years is diverted traffic to roads like yours (which you have acknowledged). Underhill, Ryedale, Goodrich, St Dunstan are examples of the many victims of the Dulwich LTNs and you think the answer is to put in more interventions? It's a bit like TFL who have put in interventions which have created more congestion (and undoubtedly more pollution) which is causing problems for buses and their answer is...well we need more interventions. At what point do we actually see any of these interventions having the desired effect because your own experience suggests they are not working but just pushing more traffic down fewer roads? I am afraid, as a cyclist, I do not see cycling as being the wonderful magic bullet many (and seemingly TFL) think it is to the traffic issues. There are far more things hindering cycle growth than just safe cycle routes - this nonsense that London can one-day be an Amsterdam is pie in the sky stuff.

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're trying to take us down an Earl rat run aren't you...;-)

So interesting you think the interventions have made your road busier yet are supportive of more interventions to manage the displacement caused by the original interventions which will create more displacement? So if they are why is congestion getting worse....you know the answer...;-)

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah there has also been a big shift from B roads to A roads due to LTNs. That is, after all, one of the stated aims of LTNs to push traffic more onto main roads - what did Cllr Leeming say about this.......? And on the basis of that dynamic routing apps have been pushing drivers from A roads to other B roads to find a quicker route around the congestion.

@Ladharrbeinn absolutely spot on but the problem is some people just don't want to hear it - they are permanently blinkered by the active travel obsession. Interestingly, the testimony given by TFL during the congestion London Assembly meeting was do telling - they are utterly obsessed by active travel and think that any negativity associated with their plans can be forgiven because it is part of the active travel doctrine. But there is @Earl Aelfheah it just happens to be one that doesn't tally with your own ideology. Waze directs drivers around congestion. It's how the algorithm works. As I said it is how the algorithm works. And I ran it at lunchtime and it was still directly vehicles along Underhill saving 3 minutes. It is now sending traffic via Peckham Rye. Interesting though is that it never sends vehicles on the most direct route which is an LTN boundary road (as Rachel Aldred et al would categorise it). Welcome to the forum! But clearly, despite all of the interventions to date, people are not getting out of their cars are they? Do you realise that many of these interventions are causing more rat-running? One presumes you supported the council's measures - what would you say to those who live on St Dunstan's who may be impacted by the closure?

@Earl Aelfheah many, many people would agree to differ with you on your summation. The facts are simple: LTNs cause displacement and congestion Post LTNs there has been an increase in congestion around the Grove Tavern junction heading to the A205 Post LTNs traffic on Underhill and surrounding streets has increased (at least 6% on Underhill with the limited monitoring the council did) as vehicles look for a way around the congestion The council is chasing the displacement as residents complain that, since the LTNs, their roads have become much busier LTNs do not lead to traffic evaporation - it is displaced, The Waze map below could really be used as a very visual story-telling infographic on "The reality of LTNs" and how it is not just boundary roads that absorb the displacement.