Earl Aelfheah

Just directly answering a question that was (apparently) posed seriously What is the saying… “ask a silly question….”

Oh, Ok. Well CPZ's aren't sentient. So I would say that it's impossible for them to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary journeys.

Is this a serious question?

Their recommendation for a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? You can keep doubling down (I have no doubt you will), but your claim that Southwark's policy is that LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough, is not right. You could correct your ‘mistake’.

What guidance? You have quoted Southwark council as recommending: Dulwich Village is in the borough. It's also just one of several LTNs the council have introduced across Southwark.

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores? That's quite the non sequitur: You claimed Southwark said LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough. You've then quoted them saying the opposite. I've already named some of the areas in the South of the borough with high PTAL scores, including Herne Hill, Peckham, Camberwell and parts of East Dulwich. I've explicitly said that the Village does not have a high PTAL score and explained some of the reasons for why that might be. I have said why I believe that a high PTAL score does not suggest one should avoid interventions that reduce motor traffic, or improve the ease and safety of walking and cycling, but the opposite. But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you Again, that's quite the non-sequitur. What you have quoted does refer to where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to, as you wrongly claimed. Might I suggest that there is some deflection going on?

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough? This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to. Exactly. Dulwich Village buses pass through the centre of the village. It's surrounded by big houses / is low density. It also has a number of large open spaces, parks and fields. So there are fewer people within a short walk from the bus.

I don't really understand how the first point fits with the last. If you are surrounded by parks and fields, there are large houses/ low density, and fewer roads, then you probably are going to have to walk further to get public transport. You seem to accept that. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting? Buses cutting through parks and playing fields? You could perhaps increase the frequency of buses through the village, but you would still have to walk to the main road. But point was that a low PTAL (it's not low across most of the local area) does not suggest the need to pursue policies encouraging more motor traffic and congestion and which make it more difficult to get about by foot or bicycle - quite the opposite.

I really don't think this is what Southwark say. They've clearly implemented LTNs across the borough. On the PTAL scores... it varies across the area, as it does for most London neighbourhoods; But the vast majority of East Dulwich is rated between a 3 and 5 ('moderate' to 'very good'). Peckham, Camberwell, and Herne Hill generally have a high ('excellent') PTAL score. The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces. One Dulwich have tried to use PTAL to undermine the case for LTNs in and around Dulwich. I suspect this is because it sounds a bit technical / 'sciencey', and few people know enough to question how 'One' Dulwich use it, or it's relevance to LTNs. If you're in an area that's fairly reliant on bus, bike and foot as the main alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys, then reducing traffic is just about the best thing you can do in the short to medium term to make getting around easier, safer, and quicker.

I really don't think this is the reality of LA funding. It allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't do, it's not allowing you to reallocate money you just had sitting there.

Councils are struggling just to fund the services they're legally obliged to provide. If money wasn't raised in this way then they would simply have to do less to improve road safety or invest in the public realm. It doesn't fund, or cross-subsidise any other activities. I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough.

Where is this guidance? All of the policy documents that I have seen have committed the council to action around active travel across the borough. I have not seen anything that states they are only looking to increase walking and cycling in the North. As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include: public realm improvements road safety initiatives freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60 The most affluent households are far more likely to have access to a car. The negative impact of motorised transport disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups; including transport-related air pollution, climate change and traffic collisions. So a class war perhaps, but not in the way you think.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24799610.lordship-lane-east-dulwich-crash-pedestrian-hospital/

Yeh, it's either a plastic bag or an alien invasion. One or the other.

It delivers their policy promises, if that's what you mean about suiting their agenda. Are you suggesting that councils are breaking the law then? Genuinely, I don't get this point. I agree with this. Consultations tend to gather feedback from a self selected, noisy minority, and massively amplify opposition to any change. When a more structured approach is taken, involving a representative sample of the community provided with high quality information on the relevant topic, you tend to get a much more nuanced and useful set of feedback. Southwark's 'citizen jury' is an excellent example of this in practice: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Southwark Report FINAL EDITS v0.5.pdf

Yes I do. The pedestrian space previously consisted of just a pavement. It has been expanded to create the square. The road has been filtered to only allow for bicycles to pass through, (so might be better describes as a cycle lane) and is clearly separate from the pedestrian area which it runs alongside. Whereas previously the road was wide and straight, it’s been narrowed and now curves (which actually encourages people to slow). There is clear separation between the road / cycle lane and the pedestrian area / square. I actually don’t know how one cannot tell the difference, but if some people are walking in the road, that may explain why they are claiming daily ‘near misses’. Try not doing that. @ArchieCarlos I absolutely agree with your post. It’s fairly pointless arguing, the square is here to stay. In my opinion it’s a much more pleasant and much safer space for having had the traffic removed. I think it will come into its own come the summer when the planting will also start to embed a bit.

@Rockets Your words are clear. You’ve stated that increased traffic and congestion bought order and made the roads safer. Where else would you like to see increased traffic and congestion in order to ‘improve road safety’?

Unbelievable. You have claimed until red in the face that there was no issue with traffic on Calton Road / that the LTN was unnecessary. Now you say the traffic and congestion was ‘awful’, but that it was also necessary to bring ‘order’ and increase safety?! 🤣 No wonder you oppose measures to reduce traffic and congestion - you’re in favour of it! 🤪

You don’t answer, because each of those statements are objectively, verifiably true. The claim that it is now more dangerous to cross the road, because the motor vehicles have been removed is therefore so obviously ridiculous, that you can’t even begin to justify it using logical reasoning. This is also nonsense. The road is where it’s always been, it’s just been narrowed to expand the pedestrian space. It is clearly marked and is dropped from the pavement. Suddenly however I think I may understand how you appear to be constantly experiencing ‘near misses’ / getting sworn at. Are you perhaps walking in the road? Right. So when addressing a claim that removing motor vehicles from a road has made said road more dangerous, it’s no good using statistics, logic, or those awful, verifiable facts. We just need anecdotes about cyclists? 🤔

@Rockets Perhaps you could clarify which of the following statements you want to take issue with: As a pedestrian you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than a bicycle. The number of collisions around the Calton Avenue junction have reduced since the introduction of the LTN Removing motor vehicles from an area always leads to reductions in road casualties Being hit by a car and a bicycle travelling at similar speeds does not pose the same (or comparable) risk of serious injury or death And assuming that you do accept these factual statements, could you explain why you think that in this case, opening the road to more through traffic from both bicycles and motor vehicles, makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists, than filtering out the motor vehicles?

Does he. So just to be clear, Penguin's argument is that if we banned bicycles from using the road, and opened it to just cars, vans and lorries (and despite the fact that as you've accepted it would mean more collisions), safety would increase because car drivers take a test? Is that what we're going with now? ...although that's not even the argument is it. Because effectively the position is that if you allow bicycles, motorcycles, vans and lorries to all pass through, it is safer.... because.. some of them have passed a test? No, you're right, I don't get it, because it makes literally no sense.

All irrelevant. We don’t have to speculate about whether removing motor vehicles from an area reduces casualties. It does. We have plenty of data to prove it. And the Square isn’t a shared space. Calton road has always been and still is, well, a road. The difference is that the road has been filtered and the pedestrian space expanded. There were always bicycles that used the road. There were also cars, motorcycles and vans. So how do more motor vehicles make it safer for pedestrians exactly? Would it be safer is we allowed motorcycles through, or do only cars reduce the risk to pedestrians? Are bigger vehicles better? Perhaps we should encourage more HGvs to drive through the area to ensure safer streets? Honestly, this is ridiculous.

No. I didn’t say this. You can tell because my words are written down for you to read. What I’m saying (and it’s not an opinion but a matter of fact), is that the forces involved in a car collision and a bicycle collision are wildly different, even when the bike is travelling faster. That’s not to say a bicycle cannot harm, or even kill someone, but that it’s much less likely. A bicycle is less dangerous by several orders of magnitude. If you remove car traffic, but the cycle traffic remains, the risk to pedestrians (and cyclists) reduces accordingly. I do not believe that you are incapable of understanding this. Suggesting the opposite is true, that reducing cars increases the danger, is literally ridiculous and you embarrass yourself doing so.

Are you suggesting that there weren’t bike’s passing through tagt junction previously? The thing that’s changed is that they’re no longer accompanied by motor vehicles. Are you therefore suggesting that introducing more motor vehicles into an area somehow protects / reduces the risk to pedestrians? Firstly, I have never once said that there is no risk of ever being hit by someone on a bicycle. On the second point, someone travelling on a bicycle would have to be travelling at 40x the speed of an average car to have anything close to the same kinetic energy (a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision) as a car. This constant false equivalence between the two demonstrates a wilful ignorance. The filtered Road that passes through / alongside the expanded pedestrian area, is not itself a pedestrian area…By definition. It’s interesting that you now accept that traffic previously queued through that area. You also seem to be hinting at the fact that perhaps the number of cyclists has increased. Some back-pedalling there (excuse the pun). …anyway, to answer your question - a bicycle would have to be travelling around 200 mph + in order to carry the same force into any potential collision as a car going at between 5-10mph. This is why every time you remove motor traffic from an area road casualties drop significantly.

I don’t know what you think you’ve ‘caught me red handed’ at. Apparently I can’t edit a post? You have never edited a post right? As I said, I couldn’t be bothered going down the usual rabbit hole of ‘how far from the junction’, ‘what counts as a serious accident’ etc. so decided not to get into discussing the data in detail. The point is that collisions have (not surprisingly) dropped significantly since motor vehicles were filtered out, as you’ve accepted. So explain how a reduction in collisions around that junction, a drop in traffic passing through, and the filtering out of motor vehicles, translates to an increased danger to people? I don’t want to be hit at all (and with less traffic passing through the junction it is less likely), but if I had to choose I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car. Obviously. The fact that you repeatedly suggest that there is no difference (or that the bicycle is more deadly in this scenario) is astounding. The impact forces involved are wildly different by many orders of magnitude. Your chances of walking away from one as opposed the other are not remotely comparable. When I’ve pointed this out before you seem to have struggled with the basic physics, but there is a significant difference.