Rockets

Are you talking about the temporary widening measures outside of Moxons? If you go back further into my posts you'll see that I was very critical of Southwark for not pavement widening soon enough (based on how quickly Lambeth had done), supportive when they did finally do so on Lordship Lane but critical again when they didn't put cycle parking infrastructure in place and again critical when they left the widening measures in long after lockdown as a tool to limit car parking. I might also remind you that a lot of the Dulwich LTN's was brought in as a Covid measure which was utterly laughable and made no sense (unless you desperately needed a reason to railroad your plans through without proper consultation or scrutiny).

But Earl, the data shows exactly that - you may not want to believe it but that's what it very much shows. Nope not at all. But there needs to be a reset of priorities. What they have done thus far is not working and is not attracting enough people to cycling - they cannot keep following the same flawed policy. They have built it but they are not coming and I am not sure they have ever stopped to understand why.

Conspiracy is how you might describe it but not a description I would use - a convenient oversight perhaps - there were a few of those during the whole LTN debacle.....;-) You haven't answered my question on Lordship Lane/Melford Road - do you honestly think the numbers submitted for the Lordship Lane South monitoring point are "99% accurate" on the basis of the position of the strips?

But there should be speed limits for bikes using roads. 20 mph is set, primarily, on the basis of reducing the risk of accidents - the same risk of accident applies to cyclists as much as cars and other road vehicles. Granted the outcome is a lot worse with a bigger vehicle but the risk of accident remains the same. In the same way the risk of an accident is higher if you don't stop at a red-light. The higher the speed the more risk of accident and a higher risk of injury - and that applies to bikes as much as it applies to an HGV. I really can't see why you are so opposed to it - few cyclists go over 20 mph and those that do would just need to go a bit slower. Cna you give me one good reason why cyclists should not adhere to the speed limit?

I think there has been an increase in cycling over the last 20 years in London (but it still only accounts for a low single figure % of daily transport usage in London), that Covid provided another big boost that was seized on by the pro-cycle lobby as proof that the cycling revolution was here (and to secured huge amounts of funding for cycling) and yet that Covid growth has all but evaporated and London is functioning less efficiently as a city as cycle infrastructure is causing huge disruption to buses etc and the numbers of new cyclists are nowhere near the number needed to justify/mitigate the disruption. Anything above that you disagree with?

Because from day one of LTN's the data monitoring, collection and analysis has been (in my mind deliberately) flawed to give inaccurate data to try to convince people that the measures are effective and delivering against their stated objectives. But can you claim Melford Road is 99% accurate when for huge parts of the day it is under the very condition that makes the monitoring inaccurate...and why did that monitoring strip get moved from nearer Court Lane...do you want to take a guess? 😉

Where did I mention anything about licensing - you can police cycle speed without the need for licensing - firstly you make it offence and that eliminates a lot of it straight away? I just want cyclists to follow the rules of the road - is that too much to ask?

Earl, sometimes the answers you are looking for are right in front of your eyes. The manufacturers advise to not place the pneumatic counters close to junctions or areas of slow moving traffic....which is exactly where councils monitoring for LTNs did place them.....I refer you to Melford Road......

Earl, I suggest you take time to re-read the whole thread again.....

Yes and I don't know why there would be any rational person who could disagree. If the speed limit of a road is 20mph it should be for anything using it - that's just common sense and I don't know why cyclists seem to think that the rules of the road don't/shouldn't apply to them. And this kinetic energy argument is accurate but ever so slightly non-sensical and ludicrous - it's a bit like asking if you would prefer to be hit in the face by a light-weight or heavy-weight boxer - I would prefer not to be hit by either to be honest! Go take a walk around Dulwich Park around school drop off time and, anyone who does it, will know that awful moment when you hear the bone-shaking crash of a wooden-boxed cargo bike hurtling towards you from behind laden with two kids (who always look like they are clinging on for dear-life!) bombing through the park on their way to school - there's a hell a of of pen-up kinetic energy in one of those I can tell you and they aren't observing the dead slow/5 mph speed limit! It's statements like this which are just hilarious.......but they still pose danger don't they.....are they danger-free?

I think you are wrong and I think there is more evidence to back my summation than yours I am afraid.

Earl, do you think speed limits should apply to bikes?

The majority of which was collated via pneumatic tubes which has since been found to have a major flaw - incorrect readings when used in slow moving traffic.

Earl, my point is, and this has consistently been my point since this all began, that encouraging cycling is a good thing but it is not the only thing you can do to reduce car use. That way too much focus, money and resources was placed on cycling by the Mayor, TFL, councils etc without ever truly understanding whether they could deliver the numbers needed to make the investment worth it. Given the money invested and disruption to other, more popular, travel modes can you honestly say that a 20% increase in what was a small number anyway has been worth it? And be careful taking yourself into a safety black hole because do you release that cycling injuries are actually increasing at a higher rate than the number of cyclists and that many are concerned that some of the cycling infrastructure installed is badly designed and actually making safety worse rather than better? It is, according to some reports. It isn't according to TFL's report - a quick reminder that TFL is responsible for the rollout and funding of a lot of the cycle infrastructure in London - just saying 😉 Absolutely spot on and often the pro-cycle community alienates themselves by just this sort of behaviour, seemingly unable to take a balanced and pragmatic path.

Wow, a claim of a 20% increase in cycling since 2019....some way off Will Norman's ten-fold increase - it's a one fifth of a one-fold increase....clearly still some way to go... Interesting that TFL is stating that journey distances are getting shorter...could this be the Deliveroo effect and/or the hire bike effect where people are choosing hire bikes over walking for short distances...I was amazed to read that Deliveroo have 15,000 cycle delivery riders in London and it makes you wonder how much of the increase is down to the growth in cycle delivery companies....it might go some way to explain why other analysis and research into cycling numbers and trends suggest that numbers are declining and below pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile something is going on and all is not as rosy as some would like to claim.....https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/uks-leading-cycling-event-the-cycle-show-reportedly-axed-for-2024-as-industry-struggles-to-negotiate-current-challenges-created-by-overstocking-and-lack-of-demand

Only if you are monitoring every road which could be considered a boundary road...which they were not. Nor did they factor in that much traffic is not being recorded because it was travelling at under 10km/h at the monitoring points on said boundary roads.... ....but you know, don't let the truth get in the way of a "good story"! 😉

It doesn't bode well does it...Good luck everyone!

We have had parcels left on walls of properties ten houses away (that were brought to us by the person in that house). Parcel delivery used to be reliable but now seems to be starting to wobble, parcels routinely turning up a day or two after they say they will arrive. i have also noticed the post box on Woodwarde has been taped over and is now out of use with people being directed to the one on Beauval or Eynella. Is this a one off or something being seen elsewhere as well?

DuvilleRes - I am happy to promote them by posting their missives on here because I agree with the message they are delivering. It's precisely the fact that I am concerned about local democracy that I am keen to promote their messages - because the council was killing the local democratic process with their actions around Healthy Streets, LTNs and, more latterly, CPZs. As a Dulwich Village resident (we presume) I am sure you are benefitting from the closure (like I am) so, of course, you are reluctant to see voices suggesting they are anything other than wonderful. Look we all know what you are trying to do - tarring OneDulwich as a Tory-led lobby group (it must be really annoying that you can't find a link to some fascist, taxi-driving, covid-denying flat-earther as then you'd have the full-house! ;-)). You know there are a couple of Daily Mail journalists living in Dulwich right - one of them recently wrote about their cycle to and from their office and another "grassed" on Meat Liquor from their flat window during lockdown? So maybe, all they are doing is, like Peter Walker, using their local knowledge to create stories - although Peter did seem to benefit a lot from all of the Rachel Aldred, ahem, exclusives on LTNs. Amazing, isn't it, how Aldred's statement in her latest report cast huge amounts of shade on the validity of all the previous "exclusives" yet the Guardian didn't pick up on that....

Malumbu, more than anyone you know I do my research!!! 😉 The more the council can do to to make EV transition easier the better and I think they should be pro-actively installing charging points on all lamp-posts that are suitable in areas where residents may want them. Yes Earl, I just wish the council had come up with all three of these policy documents after lockdown when the opportunity was the greatest - it seems that a huge opportunity for progress with walking in particular was missed.

Yes. But so does cycle infrastructure and look at the money that has been wasted on that cycle lane abomination that is now Sydenham Hill - surely the council can repurpose some of the millions made from LTN cameras to installing more EV infrastructure rather than ludicrously expensive cycle infrastructure that, in some places like Sydenham Hill, hardly gets used? It’s another very clear example of the council pouring money into those things it is ideologically wedded to and ignoring other measures that would have a positive impact on climate change. We would be a lot further progressed had the council taken a balanced approach rather than over-weighting cycling.

It seems a little odd that Southwark can put cameras up for the purposes of policing LTNs yet can't for speed related issues (or can't lobby the police to do so if it is their responsibility). Does anyone know why buses are the issue - I understand it for speed humps etc as they have a low long wheel base but cameras? Is the bus issue the key here that if the buses are forced to go 20 mph that it creates problems with their scheduling?

Maybe we are missing the point - maybe the plan is for medical student accommodation - Kings is within walking distance and is a huge teaching facility but the focus on student accommodation does seem a little odd so I am sure there is some background we are missing and the fact they are trying to convince people that these students will mov out of homes that will then be converted back to family homes is fanciful at best!

Is there some reason why they are focussing on student-accommodation - is there a planning loophole they get around by doing so? I am not entirely convinced by their rationale that by building student accommodation that this will free-up family homes as students will vacate those houses....that seems a bit of a stretch to say the least... When they refer to commercial units are they suggesting retail units - when you click on the commercial part it talks about light industrial and affordable workspace. Does anyone else suspect that these plans have been drawn up to satiate planning requirements and will probably change dramatically if they get permission?

But if you're committed to EVs then why not just proactively install it on every lamppost where it makes sense to? You know the same council takes an approach of "if you build the infrastructure they will come" when it comes to bike lanes so why not the same approach to EVs? Charging infrastructure if one of the biggest hurdles to adoption of EVs and most people don't have a driveway to charge their cars on so I just think the council has been caught sleeping at the wheel on EVs due to their ideological view of anything on 4-wheels. But I am very glad they seem to be taking proactive steps in the right direction - but saying they will go after people charging across the pavement does show that deep down they are still struggling to embrace it.