Rockets

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s a fair summary of situation on CP Rd > actually 👍🏼 > > ed26 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ha. I'll try not to get sucked in. > > > > But.... as I have seen on CPR.... > > > > Driving - obvious. It's far busier than it used > to > > be. There's always been a bit of congestion > around > > the nursery but it's the streams of cars that > is > > the problem. When 10 vehicles going one way > come > > across 10 vehicles going the other way and one > is > > a bit too wide or one driver refuses to pull in > a > > bit (I've never understood that) then it all > > grinds to a halt. > > > > Cyclists - it's got busier due to the Spine > route > > and people returning to work in the City. I > guess > > many of these are just passing through and not > > local residents but they weave in and out of > the > > waiting traffic, cycling on the wrong side of > the > > road when there's traffic coming down the other > > way, and try to squeeze through gaps while the > > cars are trying to manoeuvre into spaces to let > > traffic pass the other way. So the LTN has made > it > > more dangerous for those cyclists. > > > > Pedestrians - it's just not as nice walking up > CPR > > as it used to be. Maybe I'm comparing a cold > > grotty winter day with a lovely spring morning > but > > it's just not a pleasant experience walking up > a > > road next to gridlocked traffic with cars > belching > > out fumes and builders shouting obscenities at > > each other and blasting their horns. Makes me > want > > to drive. > > > > I know we need to do something to reduce > > unnecessary car journeys but this isn't it. > It's > > just funnelling traffic that didn't previously > > need to be on CPR onto CPR and p*ssing everyone > > off. But hang on, the council's data shows that this cannot possibly be happening, absolutely definitely not happening and even if it is the EDG Central made up numbers make all of the collateral damage across the rest of Dulwich more than worth it.....;-)

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data - > which shows traffic is significantly reduced for > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove and > Townley (where the Charter school, health centre > and Dutch Estate is)" > > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and it > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not correct > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong anyway - > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich Hosp > site and isn't at Townley - that central stretch > is about 10 metres and doesn't include Townley or > the Dutch estate. > > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't know > the area very well at all - do you? > > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years and > you might have a bit more knowledge of this road. Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't look beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines they are spoonfed by the council and they regurgitate it without actually checking for thenselves. I started taking a closer look at the "methodology" that the council shared to support the figures they published and it makes for fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed piece of research is an understatement. My interest was peaked to look beyond the headlines because the methodology document stated that the pre-scheme data collection was done out of school holidays yet it didn't make the same claim for the post-scheme data collection and I wondered whether the council had been fudging the results in their favour by comparing school holiday flows with non-school holiday flows. I am still working through it but if anyone wants my initial headline assessment PM me and I will happily share the key slides that I think pose more questions than provide answers and maybe someone else can take a look and see if they are seeing the same things I am.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In about 15 years from now cars will be fully > automated and electric. The internal combustion > engine will be a museum piece. There will be very > little pollution and no road traffic accidents > whatsoever. > > And in the future beyond that people will use > personal aviation machines which will no doubt > still irritate all the penny farthing fetishists. > > Fully automated cars have been "10-15 years away" > for about 35 years now. They're still "10-15 years > away". Yes, you've got cars that have a high > degree of automation built in and test cars have > done full laps of race circuits but there's > currently nothing close to full automation in an > urban environment for consumer use. > > It's another way of kicking the can down the road, > the idea that we don't need to do anything now > because in x years time everything will be > perfect, solved for us by the power of technology. > Which I said back on Page 7... Not entirely true Ex. The electrification of cars, and the threat posed by Tesla, is proving to be a very good catalyst for car manufacturers to embrace ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) and other systems, that accelerate the roll-out of automated driving functions. The scale goes from 0 (parking sensors) up to 5 (no steering wheel) and manufacturers are starting to roll-out level 3 systems. A Tesla can pretty much drive itself right now (granted not in a city environment) and you can even summon it from it's parking space if it is less than 200 feet away. So it's coming - granted it has taken longer than many had hoped and it will take a long time to establish and will need to get buy-in from the likes of TFL and local authorities to put in some of the infrastructure required to make it work at level 5 (where your car/bus/van/lorry will communicate with everything and everyone around it) but it's coming. Of course it is not an overnight solution and I don't think anyone is suggesting we should do nothing until those systems arrive but they are coming and they will drastically reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads. I do think, however, that councils and the likes of TFL should be doing a lot more to embrace electrification of vehicles as every fossil-fuel vehicle they encourage people to get rid of will reduce pollution far more efficiently and effectively than LTNs will ever manage to do.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our > supposed > > leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe > > history will show us it was complete folly that > > made things worse rather than better and did > > nothing to deliver against its stated > objectives > > and was only installed because of political > > pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups. > > They have delivered against their objectives. > They've increased active travel and they've > reduced car use and for that matter, road > accidents. There is no evidence that they have > made 'things' worse. ....depends who you talk to..... P.S. your "success" claims should always come with the *"according to the council's own data" disclaimer.....

Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our supposed leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe history will show us it was complete folly that made things worse rather than better and did nothing to deliver against its stated objectives and was only installed because of political pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups.

Northern - incessant attempts to twist..tee hee........I refer you to the preceding posts within the thread...to point out it is others who are trying to twist the narrative. He is indeed a Conservative party candidate standing on a Conservative ticket for the Conservatives....but that's not what's upsetting people is it - it's because he is standing on an anti-LTN ticket and that, despite his Conservative'ism, makes him a big threat? If he becomes the only candidate running on an anti-LTN ticket then that makes him an even bigger threat to the Labour incumbents. The Lib Dems' next move will be very interesting - do they put the opportunity to grab seats ahead of policy towards LTNs? There is no escaping the fact that every candidate will need to address LTNs in the battle for the local votes and, come May, I very much suspect a lot of people will be eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put an X in a box next to the name of someone other than the incumbents.

March - by the same judge then are you accusing the Dulwich Ballet School, Dulwich Village Association and Grafton Dance Centre as being politically motivated - they are also some of the members of the Dulwich Alliance? At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether any pro- or anti-LTN group has particular political leanings (most have been clear from the outset that they are a-political) - what matters is whether people vote for the candidates at the council elections. People seem to be very focussed on trying to paint anti-LTN groups as Tory-funded lobby groups (they have been trying to deposition them from the outset on a wide range of issues not just politics) and it probably shows just how worried some are. I think, what is clear, is that the noise around Clive Rates running as a candidate and his links to the anti-LTN lobby via the Dulwich Alliance, is clearly worrying a few incumbents and their supporters - he will probably be delighted about the lengths some are going to try to undermine him. Local issues will always direct votes in local council elections and whilst many will use their vote to stick it to the Tories to send a message at the national level there are many who will probably want to do the same to Labour in Southwark at the local level - then the issue becomes who are people more annoyed with.

Unfortunately, the council and our councillors have made LTNs a key issue for these upcoming elections - in some wards it may be the biggest issue and may be what motivates voters to vote for one candidate over another. Having watched many council meetings and seen the way the council and councillors act it is clear they need some sort of opposition in Tooley Street, even if it is one of two additional agitators making life more difficult for them. It would be interesting to see who else is running and what their position on the LTNs is. Have the Lib Dems played their hand. I know they have been supportive of LTNs but have they revealed their hand for May?

It will be very interesting to see how other candidates, not Labour of course, react in terms of their approaches to LTNs as a result.

The bottom line is that if everyone using roads treated other road users in the way they expect to be treated themselves then everyone could get on swimmingly!

tom1975 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would like to invite Nigello, CPR Dave, Rockets > and anyone else to join me next Wednesday on the > school cycle run from ED to Dulwich so you can all > experience what it's like to ride in London beside > buses and cars. I think it would be enjoyable and > educational for you and hopefully reduce the > amount of hostility you feel towards cyclists. The > only way to improve the impression you have is to > join in the experience for yourself and learn from > it. > > We will commute to my childs school and then > continue to my office north of the West End. That > includes going up Dog Kennel hill at decent speed > then past Kings and through Camberwell, onto > Elephant Castle and Waterloo, all in peak-hour > traffic. I hope you're of reasonable fitness > because I need to be at work for 9:15am. > > You can make your own way home and we'll meet the > morning after to repeat the journey and discuss > what you've learnt and why cyclists may choose to > jump red lights to remain safe and why children > ride on the footpath. > > Anyone interested can meet me on the corner of > Friern Rd and Goodrich Rd at 8:20am next > Wednesday. Tom, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Used to cycle from East Dulwich to Hammersmith for work and DKH was a great way to start and finish my journey - the thigh-burn! I used to love cycling to work it was a great way to start the day - 45 minutes of cycling through some lovely parts of London. I hasten to add, I deliberately cycled routes to avoid the busiest roads. Red light jumpers used to annoy me when I cycled because so few cyclists seemed to believe they applied to them - often they would take very vocal offence that I had actually stopped for red lights - sometimes there wasn't much bonhomie between supposed like-minded individuals. Some cyclists believe rules don't apply to them and, as per this thread demonstrates, there is a problem that needs addressing.

And it's clear from the Highway Code you linked to DKHB that no cyclists should be using footpaths: Section 64 Something that confuses many cyclists is whether or not they are allowed to cycle on the pavement. According to Laws HA 1835 section 72 & RSA 1984, section 129, cyclists must not cycle on the pavement.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good idea - unfortunately it?s got the stage where > no matter what a councillor says some will twist > it and interpret it in a way to suit their agenda. > Cllr Leeming was helpfully informing people of the > Thames Water works, he?s right it probably will be > quicker to walk or cycle if you can possibly avoid > driving. That?s true of most travel in London. > > > jazzer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Perhaps bring this back to the topic, rather > than > > go of at various unconnected tangent's. > > > > If you want to talk about cllrs/MP, how about > > starting a separate thread. To be fair I think a lot of people take offence to his tone and his, sometimes, pointed and demeaning tweets. I am not sure what value adding the comment below brings to his thread, other than trying to have a dig: Remember, this is the responsibility of Thames Water not the council Either that or he is really worried about losing his seat and feels the need to spell it out to people! Pretty sure most people realize the water main has nothing to do with the council!

Did the Royal Mail say they couldn't supply someone for interview because of Covid isolation and sickness? ;-) It is about time someone tells us all what is happening and how it is going to be fixed - everyone seems to be saying something slightly different: US and councillors: closure of Silvester Road Postal workers: closure of Silvester Road, bad management, new rounds Unions: Covid, lack of resources Royal Mail: Covid, staff absences Will someone please tell us the truth and fix it

This worries me: A Royal Mail spokesperson said: "We aim to deliver to all addresses we have mail for, six days a week. The issue is now backlog not frequency of deliveries. Even if they get close to 6 days a week doesn't mean the issue is being resolved unless they are actively clearing the backlog. If we are all getting recent mail and some mail from the first week of December can we expect mail from the week before Xmas to come in three weeks?

I think it is the same main that keeps going. The traffic is horrendous and will be for as long as the work continues. For Cllr Leeming to play the blame game is very reflective of his approach to most things #itstheirfault. Granted the council can't do anything about a main bursting but their closure of roads makes the problems far far worse when this happens (and it happens a lot and will continue to happen a lot).

Love Cllr Rose's defence of not being able to make changes on unspecified claims....this from. A council that willfully ignored the input of residents during the LTN consultation. You get the sense they are playing political dodgeball at every turn.... Cllr Catherine Rose, cabinet member for transport, parks and sport, said: ?We have really listened to local people in making many changes to the schemes, to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and lower mobility. We have introduced a wide range of exemptions and changes to assist our most vulnerable residents. Driving is an important liberty for many older residents, who wish to continue driving after 70. ?Of course walking and cycling aren?t always possible for some people and we do not claim we have got it all right, but we can?t make changes based on unspecified claims. We need residents to contact us with specific cases of where this has had a negative impact on someone we can look at how best to mitigate against that. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/catastrophic-harmful-and-savage-dulwichs-elderly-say-they-suffer-under-low-traffic-neighbourhood-scheme/

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had an interesting experience yesterday crossing > OKR into a cycle only lane with a pedestrian > crossing across the cycle lane bit. The > pedestrian crossing across the cycle lane is light > controlled, but I don't think that matters for the > new highway code. Street View link below > hopefully. > > As the lights changed to green for cyclists to > cross OKR, several pedestrians (one with a pram) > crossed the cycle lane up ahead with their > pedestrian light phase on red, so the lead > cyclists stopped, with the result that those of us > at the back were left in the road on OKR, as the > cyclist lights changed from green to red, allowing > all the heavy traffic on OKR to proceed right at > us. > > Needless to say the OKR traffic did not give way > and we all had to pull left/right up on the > pavement to be safe. > > Am I missing something about the new Highway Code > - does it apply even to a crossing point that is > pedestrian light controlled or is it right that > cyclists need to give way to waiting pedestrians > at a crossing even when the pedestrian light is > red? If it is, then I assume the answer is that > the OKR traffic should have waited for us to wait > for the pedestrians, but that feels...unlikely to > happen in practice. > > > 7,3a,75y,22.67h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snER672PT2- > 7TdlbnF2PFAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Siduhe - I think you're right (unless there are different rules for traffic lights) but the bikes would give-way to the pedestrians and the cars give way to the bikes and/or the pedestrians.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You said that "There was a lot made by the cycle > lobby that they now have right of way at junctions > etc over cars " > > This is patent nonsense gleaned from the DM, > cyclists follow the same rules at junctions at > everyone else and have NO priority over cars But Redpost - there was. As I made clear I try don't glean anything from the DM - but hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey! Did you read the Guardian article I linked to: here's the headline and standfirst for your reading pleasure: Two in three UK drivers unaware of planned Highway Code changes Cycling group says key changes need to be clearly explained, as Labour claims ministers are ?missing in action? The point I was making was that the cycle lobby have been pushing the narrative on what this means for the way drivers treat cyclists, and of course the cycle lobby are going to do that, but it is important for cyclists to also understand how they now need to treat pedestrians too. Not sure why you can't just agree instead of trying to constantly deposition everything I say. It's exactly this type of attitude that annoys many about the way cyclists act and behave when dealing with others.

Just got a Xmas card - postmarked Dec 3rd......

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is going to be very interesting how the > Highway > > Code changes impact things. There was a lot > made > > by the cycle lobby that they now have right of > way > > at junctions etc over cars but what many failed > to > > mention is pedestrians now have right of way > over > > cyclists in the same situation. > > Rubbish, there is no priority for cyclists, all > the new rules do is reiterate the need to treat > cyclists with respect and don't cut them up or cut > them off when they are vulnerable in the middle of > the road (ie. treat them like a car). > > You really need to stop relying on the DM for your > information. > > Rule H3: > > "You should not cut across cyclists going ahead > when turning into or out of a junction or changing > direction or lane, just as you would not turn > across the path of another motor vehicle. This > applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a > cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you > should give way to them. > > Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause > the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or > swerve, just as you would do with a motor > vehicle. > > You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the > flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when > cyclists are: > > approaching, passing or moving off from a > junction > moving past or waiting alongside stationary or > slow-moving traffic > travelling around a roundabout? > > As for pedestrians, the old rules said that a > pedestrian should be free to cross as long as they > have started to cross (ignored by some drivers > who beep or ram you when crossing the road). > > The new rules say that *waiting* pedestrians > should be allowed to cross the road freely by > stopping, zero chance of this happening with 99% > of london drivers. Redpost - thanks for going to further validate my point that many on the pro-cycle lobby seem to only want to focus on the changes to the rules for drivers in your predictably aggressive response. You have further validated my point that there has been a lot of discussion about the additional, and welcome, protection the rule changes afford cyclists (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/30/two-in-three-uk-drivers-unaware-of-planned-highway-code-changes) but less on the fact that the same guidance now applies to cyclists in relation to pedestrians given the new hierarchy of road users. You selectively clipped addition H3 from the new code but H2 is the part I am referring to (which refers to all road user including cyclists): Rule H2 Rule for drivers, motorcyclists, horse drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists - At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. - You MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists on a parallel crossing (see Rule 195). - Pedestrians have priority when on a zebra crossing, on a parallel crossing or at light controlled crossings when they have a green signal. - You should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross a parallel crossing. - Horse riders should also give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists on a parallel crossing So cyclists now should give way to pedestrians at junctions. So this is the point I was trying to highlight so it is was neither rubbish nor gleaned from the Daily Mail (a publication I do not read I hasten to add). In the spirit of a conversation where it is clear some cyclists struggle to adhere to the rules about cycling on pavements one wonders how they might grasp the need to allow pedestrians to cross at junctions.

It is going to be very interesting how the Highway Code changes impact things. There was a lot made by the cycle lobby that they now have right of way at junctions etc over cars but what many failed to mention is pedestrians now have right of way over cyclists in the same situation.

At last! He should have done this ages ago instead of wasting millions on ludicrous schemes like the LTNs that just make the problems worse. I hope the scheme is means tested so everyone pays the "same". It does look like a bit of a kite-flying exercise and the real story is the clean-air charge - which also is very welcome. Looks like the Clean Air Charge will also prompt a discussion about what councils are doing to encourage and embrace clean-air vehicles and infrastructure as such a move will be the catalyst to get people to look at electric.

It's the ding ding of impatient cycling children and their parents approaching at speed from behind you on pavements and when there isn't a car in sight on the closed roads that really annoys. Ding ding....bike coming through....move out of my way IMMEDIATELY....the problem is the actions of a few tarnishes the perception of everyone else.

Legal - I appreciate you coming to my defence!!! ;-) It was very similar to that one but to another level of granularity that showed postcode by postcode within the WF LTNs. Similar rocketing upward curve mind you. Whomever tweeted the one I saw was using it to dispel Aldred's conclusions that the WF LTN had reduced car ownership - it hadn't, the reverse had actually happened. To be fair to the protagonist they did say that there was rapid gentrification of the closed off roads that drove house prices up and more people/families with cars moved in.