Earl Aelfheah

Why don’t you email the council?

Have you ever tried emailing the council when you want to find something, rather than posting in here about how it’s some sort of conspiracy? Yes, website are updated, but whenever I have emailed the council asking for info, they’ve always provided it

hmmm... Maybe have a word with the person who took the thread off track, and keeps taking it off track. Again, happy to keep to topic, but not to give people a free pass to say anything they like when they fail to do so.

You may hate it, but that doesn't mean it's universally hated. I would bet that it is a very small minority of people who support the square being removed and replace with a lane of queuing cars. I didn't say that the handful of people who have been absolutely obsessed for more than 5 years about a 2 minute diversion from Townley Road to the Village, will ever accept it. In fact I think I said that the 'hatred' you talk about is bordering on pathological; which suggests the opposite. What I did say is that there is zero chance of it being reversed due to a legal challenge. There are no grounds for a legal challenge.

What are the benefits to pedestrians? Of a zebra crossing and larger pedestrian area? I guess if you flip the question it might help - is it better for pedestrians to have less space and fewer safe crossing points?

I don't make cakes, but happy to eat them if you need someone?

What about the upstairs of the EDT? Is it possible to reserve an area?

Sam99p on Walworth road has been undercutting them for some time now.

.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that the changes to road layout made half a decade ago in the Village are going to somehow be overturned through a legal challenge. By who, and on what grounds exactly? It's pathological.

Lock it outside the Ritzy. Well overlooked spot, lot's of parking

There is plenty of room for a segregated lane and it would link to the Railton Road LTN, and onwards to Brixton tube.

I would love to see the 'Southwark spine' turned in to a proper, safe, south / north corridor. The worst parts of that route currently are the crossing with Peckham Road travelling North to south, and Crystal Palace Road - which is too narrow (cars get impatient, especially travelling up the hill, and make dangerous / close passes). The turn off of Chadwick Road to Lyndhurst Road is super dangerous. Many cars plough through that turn, whilst the bike lane curves round to the right. There have been a lot of collisions there.

Glad everyone had fun; Sorry to have missed it. If I can, I'll try to make the next one. Well done for organising Sue.

Not in Ed, but I was in NE England over the weekend and saw an otter in the wild! Never seen one before, it was quite lovely.

As Mal says, we're going to undergo huge changes in the labour market over the next 5 years as a result of AI. Driverless cars are probably the least of our worries. Might be time to get a trade!

You want your friend to be able to make comments and not be challenged? Ask Rockets not to take things off topic if it bothers you. Don’t ask that he be immune from challenge when making disingenuous and / or misleading comments. I’ve never said they’re a panacea. You’ve offered no evidence that they’re increasing pollution. None. It’s amazing that you expect people to take your ‘concern’ that Lime bikes are damaging the environment seriously whilst having nothing to say about short journeys being undertaken by car (on any measure a far more polluting option). The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. The irony. So you’re are Ok to talk about Lime bikes, in ways that are both misleading and disingenuous, but anyone who responds or corrects you is taking the thread off topic. Do you actually hear yourself?

Because they posted it on this thread. Why not address this to Rockets? I did not bring it up.

I’ve directly addressed the points they’ve made. Ask them not to make points about e-bikes or the council tax paid by motorists ‘without discount’, if you think they’re taking things off topic. Don’t ask that people not be challenged on things they’ve said.

It has less environmental impact (Which you’re pretending to be really concerned about remember), and active travel is better for health. Nope. This is a concept you regularly appear to struggle with. There are not just a fixed number of journeys that people make without choice. I have literally given you an example of one scenario, but there are many. Different available transport options open up different opportunities, or reduce ‘friction’ leading to different decisions. A well documented example of this is induced demand following the creation of. Anew road for example. So again. Explain why you’re concerned about the pollution caused by short journeys taken by e-bike, but not by car? Doesn’t seem like common sense. Seems massively disingenuous. Presumably including car.

Tell that to people who wanted to make points about council tax levied on motorists ‘without discounts’ and those wanting to express concern about the environmental impact of electric bikes whilst consistently minimising the impact of car journeys / objecting to any suggestion that is a problem. If one is going to make such points, it is not reasonable to expect them to be accepted without comment or challenge.

It’s not just about CO2, but just for a bit of perspective Rocks as you’re suddenly concerned about the environmental impacts of transport choices: Car: Approximately 271 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. Bus: Around 101 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. E-bike: Around 14.8 to 22 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Walking/Cycling: Negligible CO2 emissions …cars and buses also contribute to local air pollution. So any concern you have about short e-bike journeys (some of which replace private car and bus journeys), must be even greater with regards short car journeys, which only replace less polluting modes of travel. Could equally point out that you only have concern about it when it’s to undertake necessary maintenance, but apparently don’t consider it an issue otherwise?

If people are using bikes instead of a car or the bus then it’s a win. If they’re using them exclusively in place of walking it could be a (small) negative. That is almost certainly not how they’re being used though. By 2023 there were already 1 million car journeys that had been avoided. You’re trying to pretend that no one walks anymore, but are choosing to pay three quid every time they leave the house based on nothing. It seems incredibly unlikely. As usual you also assume that there are a fixed number of (purely essential) journeys and people just switch one mode for another. This isn’t how it works. I may decide not to go meet a mate for a quick pint if I’m short on time, or can’t be bothered to get a bus / walk. But could make a different choice if there is a quick and convenient (and fun) way to get there. I suspect a large number of lime journeys are actually new journeys / the result of induced demand as well as switches. Which tallies with those Lime users saying they’ve generally become more active as a result of using them. What we do know, and don’t need to speculate about, is that people are regularly driving extremely short distances and yet apparently you do not consider that any sort of problem at all. So cycling a journey one might otherwise not have made, may have used a bus or car for, or perhaps walked, is a concern. But driving a journey one might have otherwise walked is not? I think everyone can see how disingenuous this is. So you’re suggesting that 35% of car journeys (‘any mode’) are actually under 1 km? Is that better?

No. It is very likely that many of the journeys are replacing cars and buses, some walking (although the cost makes me doubt this is significant, as you’re unlikely to pay a few quid for a journey easily walked), and many will be entirely new journeys as a result of induced demand. This would tally with those saying they’re generally more active as a result of using Lime bikes. Again, why do you think people cycling short distances instead of driving, taking the bus, or walking is a problem, but have nothing to say about the huge number of people regularly using a car to travel less than 2km? Explain that please.

I think most people pay full council tax, regardless of their car owning status. They said: I took the ‘without discounts’ to imply that they should get discounts. Otherwise I don’t understand the reference to discounts. Especially when followed with complaints that the council “makes a profit from ttaxing motorists“, and; “They (the council) are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.” If I’ve misunderstood then I apologise, but I ask again, what taxes are the council raising on motorists? Are they paying any more council tax than non-drivers? If not, what is the point? It certainly sounds like they think council tax payers owe drivers something. But by all means quote the whole post and tell me how you’ve understood it, if you think I’m being unfair.