goldilocks

Rockets - lets have some data on 'cycling numbers plummeting'. Offical data using comparative counts though. The thing about cycling infrastructure and 'paymasters' is interesting too - its cheap. It doesn't require anywhere near as much maintenance as the road network - the mass of bikes plus riders is no where near as damaging to road surfaces etc.

Actually though, anti LTN posters above were using that clickbait to complain about bike lanes. See ab29 above. Thankfully, based on the actual data in the New Statesman article it can be seen that the view that London is the most congested city because of bike lanes is absolute rubbish. The data that Inrix produced doesn't show this - someone in the organisation did a massive overreach.

Yes - every time this group meets up or some other variation on this group (essentially the same people at everything) the numbers are hugely inflated. At least doubled. Because there was such a low turnout at this event it was genuinely possible to count that there were 14 people there, so shows just what has been going on. Hitmyhat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 'around 30 people'... > > > > > > One can only assume that the other 16 people > were > > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time > the > > photo was taken. Either that or the usual > 'report > > double the number of attendees' approach is > doing > > some heavy lifting there. > > That is the only comment you have? This was older > and disabled people telling Southwark Council how > difficult their lives have become because of the > LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about > numbers??

'around 30 people'... One can only assume that the other 16 people were camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time the photo was taken. Either that or the usual 'report double the number of attendees' approach is doing some heavy lifting there.

There are some issues to consider - but its a bit like 'if you're hit by an individual' - they don't have insurance to claim against either. Like if someone attacks you in the street, they don't have insurance. There is the criminal injuries compensation scheme (maybe this would apply in the scenarios you note as also illegal activities) but wouldn't pay for loss of earnings. I don't think that anyone is advocating that e scooters should be on pavements - they travel too fast, but of the 196 cases noted above, it sounds as though the majority are from riders themselves falling off their scooters. If this is just alone then maybe caveat emptor and they'll become less popular. If its because they were hit by cars, then the ongoing questions about the safety of our roads for any users other than cars is back on the table.

Its not great - but its hard to understand in context isn't it. For example there were 196 injuries in the year, but how many e scooters are being used. Compared to the number of casualties Kings treat where pedestrians are injured by having cars driven into them, or driver or passengers of car injuries I'd imagine its small.

If you're a member of LCC then you get legal cover with your membership - I think that its a partnership with Osbornes.

Raise it with your councilor. If its emergency works then unfortunately it's just one of those things, but for scheduled projects it feels unreasonable.

I agree. I don't know whether the data on the website is the original data or updated, and would also like to see clearer underlying data too. I can't trust anything the Dulwich Alliance say unfortunately. Too many instances of them stating things that actually turn out to be untrue.

Thats just the same data - and same claims though. Would be good to see something not from the Dulwich Alliance on it.

Even if the driver gave a statement, they will still want witnesses if possible. Wonder if any of the houses there have cctv covering it? nkmjr - I hope you make a quick recovery.

surely even a 3 storey building would obscure the views of neighbouring leaseholders on the first 3 stories of the existing buildings

I'm a little confused about this petition - it says that the 6 storey proposed block would 'dwarf surrounding blocks', but then all those in the photo appear to have 6 stories. Are there smaller blocks surrounding the area where building is proposed?

Its going to be a Megan's coffee shop and deli bar or something - was mentioned upthread. Basically a cafe

There is continued high demand for (good) childcare in this area. This provider is at the expensive end of the market but looks to have great provision. Its exactly what we would have wanted when we had small children and would have meant that we wouldn't have had to travel to W Dulwich every day such was the scarcity of the provision locally.

This! - for pm2.5 its so incredibly important that we stop burning stuff. Particularly wood. No one should be burning wood in cities. Our homes are heated in other ways, wood burning is horrifically polluting! There is no safe option. If you think 'its ok, I have an eco burner'- you don't, its a greenwash! heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)3 > 0029-0/fulltext > Anyway for anyone interested - a 2017 article on > the inflammatory aspects of PM. > > Please do not burn logs in your homes or rubbish > in your garden - it creates harmful PM.

I don't think that we really want people to be locking cycles to lampposts if possible, it can often cause accessibility issues and would be good to have less clutter on pavements rather than more. There are easy solutions for bike parking and having different options, including spaces for non standard cycles would be good.

I don't think it 'comes with the salary' Alice. Also imagine the curve is quite steep above that and that there will be regional variations. But you can see how in non covid times. people in that bracket are more likely to take multiple holidays abroad, run more than one car etc. However, its not a given and in London its naturally skewed anyway. alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Radio4 today those earning ?100K+ produce 9X CO2

Or just try not a) getting it wrong and then b) adding on 'don't respond to this'. If you want to just listen to your own opinions then talk at a mirror, otherwise you take your chances.

In Dulwich the majority of state schools have a catchment of less than 1km. Even with toddlers thats less than 20 mins walking. Even for those with a 1km catchment there is usually a closer school than that. So why is it that whenever topics like this come up people start talking about school busses? We live in a densely populated part of London with multiple local schools. No one needs a bus for primary school. At secondary, absent SEN, kids can make their own way there and would be helped massively by far fewer people driving. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course it must be great to have the nanny walk > all the kids to school while one cycles to one's > job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes > Crescent - things are very different from some of > the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for > some extra cash. > > Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need for > many multiple journey's as well as travelling to > cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then go > and do their carers job and take children to > school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could walk, > although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning is > interesting.... > > Just condemning people who have very few options > to choose in life is one way of looking at this > issue, but maybe trying to provide public > transport links, school pick-up buses and help to > not rely on a car is another.

Nigello - you realise that what you've essentially just said is 'how can you think this how ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then also added - if you don't think that, don't dare comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion forums work! You don't get to comment and then say - no comebacks. Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of walking 15 mins on both ends was something that is offputting for people in using public transsport. I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting if you have an easier option. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both ends > is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. (I > don't say that you think this is too much to walk > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do, > then, see above!)

Rockets - I don't think anyone 'can't understand why people would prefer to jump in their car' - aside from the fact that driving is often slower and more congested, the journey is comfy, warm, own space etc. Compared to public transport with multiple changes, or having to walk 15 mins on both ends its an easy choice. But thats the point, if that choice is an easy one, then something is wrong. Allowing people to make journeys in a city by private car is unsustainable (in many ways). Driving needs to be reserved for those who really cannot travel in other ways, and no, thats not the 'busy mum trying to get to work after dropping the kids off'

I'd imagine that the decline in cycling (which i think is mainly referenceable to the counts in central London rather than areas like Dulwich )is down to people no longer being in the office every day. Since lockdown I cycle to the office, but only on the days that I go in. I never used to because I thought that cycling the route I needed to was hostile, but have now sorted out better links as cycling during the pandemic meant that I learnt just how easy to get around it was. Its longer so around the 15km mark, but worth it to avoid the worst bits of the route. Linking back to your previous posts though Rockets about how when you're freezing cold it being tempting to get in the car, I think that this is the issue. If I don't cycle my alternative is public transport (which is unreliable at the moment and frequency still down), whereas those going to non central locations still have a viable alternative of driving. Asking people to use other modes of transports has roundly failed, so putting in place methods to inhibit car usage are key.

the bit where you assume everyone is like you- apparently it extends to naming interpretation too