Rockets

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.

Ex- what I continually marvel at is how often people say - look, here's the facts to back up the council's conclusions and when you take a closer look at said documents it actually massively undermines the results they have come to. Can anyone explain why the "When Was The Pre-scheme Data Collected" specifically say: call out that "This data collection all took place outside school holidays" yet that isn't called out at all in the "When Was The Post-Scheme Data Collected". In fact there is no mention of school holidays in the latter - so, are we to presume some data may have been collected during school holidays - or is this another infamous council LTN oversight.......? I will bet you my bike that the "independent party" who supplied the video of the cyclists was none other than Anna Goodman for her report she created here: https://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/1_DulwichReport_FINAL2.pdf. Surely if Systra want us to take their report seriously they should be telling us where that data, that they used to formulate some of their findings came from?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what > purposes was it collected and from which point was > it collected as it is not the same location as the > Sept 21 monitoring point)? > 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? > 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept > 21 figure? > 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the > Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been > adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure > compatibility and what adjustment took place and > why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 > figures were modelled. > 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG > Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, > prompted that so late in the process? > 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was > it at the beginning of the month before the > private schools went back or at the end of the > month during the fuel crisis? > > It's all in the Streetspace reports. > Overall review page: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > Section on > monitoring:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport- > and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulw > ich-review?chapter=4 > > There's a LOT in there - methodology, basic > explanations of timings and data, locations of > counters and so on but it's worth sitting down > when you've got some free time to read it > carefully and in context. Ex- and when you do bury down into that you realise it should probably be classified as a work of fiction! Look: When Was Pre-Scheme Data Collected? ? The data used to understand traffic prior to the Streetspace scheme was mostly collected by the Council for studies prior to 2020 with some additional collection in June 2020. This data collection all took place outside school holidays. ? Where multiple data sets at a location were collected prior to scheme implementation, the most recent data collected prior to March 2021 was used to have a pre-scheme dataset unimpacted by COVID-19 where possible. When Was Post-Scheme Data Collected? ? Data for after the implementation of the Streetspace schemes was collected in September 2020, and then either continuously or in tranches in 2021. ? On key external roads data has been collected continuously throughout 2021, on other roads data has been collected for all weeks in March, April, June and September 2021. ? The time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf. Notice how the post scheme data collection fails to mention (as the pre-scheme does) that the numbers were collected outside of school holidays. Surely if you call that out in the pre-scheme collection you need to in the post scheme collection - unless, of course, the data collection happened during the school holidays. And this made me chuckle as well: What is cycling demographic data and how has it been used? ? Cycling demographic data has been collated via manual observation of video footage of people cycling through the junction of Calton Avenue / Dulwich Village, completed by an independent party. So the people responsible for the report didn't actually collate the cycling demographic data themselves it was completed by an "independent party". I can see how that discussion went down: hey, pro-cycle lobby group you know that video you have of lots of people cycling through Calton Avenue can we use it for Southwark's independent third-party report on how successful the LTNs have been........;-) Anyone want to take a guess on the source of that video?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These are questions you need to ask the council on > their monitoring - no idea how i'd have this > information. Though re question 4 I'd put money on > the fact that its because that statement exists > elsewhere in the report and its been erroneously > copied across. On Point 4 it doesn't exist anywhere else in the report - it is the only slide that has that caveat added to it. What is clearly suggests is that the Sept 19 figures were modelled by adding some secret sauce to the Jan 19 figures (which were taken from a different location on EDG) and it is the secret sauce that delivers an increased between Jan 19 and Sep 19 which then gives the "reduction" in Sep 21. Jan 19: 12,408 total vehicles Sep 19: (secret sauce numbers): 15,316 total vehicles Sep 21: 12,675 total vehicles I am using the total vehicle numbers because I cannot be bothered to unwrap the different vehicle types. I did ask Cllr McAsh to provide some detail when he started giving his explanation for the figures but, as yet, no response has been forthcoming. Also as an aside, very interestingly and something that I had failed to realise, but the council does not seperate cars and LGVs from their analysis but lumps them together. I wonder why they are doing that, especially when TFL goes to great lengths to break them out?

Goldilocks - there are many unanswered questions on that particular section of monitoring. Can you help shed any light perhaps? I will pose these questions again: 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled. 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process? 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis?

Our kids got their Christmas issue of the Week Junior today - no sign of the ones from the beginning of December mind you of the Jan 8th issue. Royal Mail - extending that Christmas spirit well into the New Year!

Raeburn - I still hold-out I saw an analysis of increase in car ownership within the Waltham Forest LTN based on DVLA registrations, and as I stated at the time some were suggesting it could be linked to the gentrification of the area post LTN installation. If I find that post I will be sure to share it with you but I didn't make it up - so, no, I won't be correcting my post on the basis of analysis by Rachel Aldred (which is clear what you are basing your assumptions on - but do feel free to correct me if you're not). It is interesting isn't it that a basic Google search on Waltham Forest LTN car ownership leads you to the inevitable SEO optimised Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman articles on how wonderful the LTN in Waltham Forest is - which in itself is quite telling but I suspect that's a discussion for another day and I don't want to trigger an accusation of deflection from you! ;-)

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you were happy to post complete > disinformation about an LTN on the other side of > London? No I didn't. I posted on the basis of something I had seen saying that the Waltham Forest LTN had led to an increase of car ownership within the LTN - you countered to say that was proven to be fake but you didn't provide anything to back up your claim. Feel free to send your proof and let's analyse it. More than happy to stand corrected if you can correct me...... What is clear is that amongst the pro-LTN lobbyists and the pro-LTN councillors there is a feeling that non "side-roads" are the place you send displaced traffic and are the collateral damage for a few residents to live on closed roads. Do you think that is fair Raeburn - I don't and I think it is reflective that LTNs don't work as they were first intended - to reduce traffic and pollution for everyone - and the pro-LTN lobbyists have had to change their tune significantly to change the narrative?