Earl Aelfheah

Do you really buy the idea that groups like One Dulwich have any interest in reducing car use? In areas where they've successfully campaigned to have LTNs removed, they have quickly disbanded. Removing restrictions on car use is really all they care about. And it is very clear that removing restrictions on car use, increases car use. @rockets - I note that you omitted the conclusion on the South Circular: "It is therefore hard to draw a firm conclusion about how traffic volumes on the South Circular have changed since the implementation of the Streetspace measures." ...also, what are you looking at on the data dashboard? It shows consistent drops in vehicle counts across the area. You cannot seriously be arguing that existing research and data does not show that LTNs reduce car use?! You're desperately looking for single data points whilst ignoring a large and consistent body of evidence.

So if they don't accept the existing body of research, or any of the existing (not insubstantial) data. Exactly what makes you think that they'll accept any new data, should it happen not to show what they want it to? I am still very keen to know what OD would do to reduce cars use, improve road safety and encourage more walking and cycling (which they're definitely, really supportive of)?

I took it from what you said... that they (one Dulwich) are only asking for data specific to the ED area, rather than research what draws on other boroughs. The implication is that they accept the existing research, but just want more data specific to Dulwich. The good news is that there is lots of data specific to the Dulwich LTN, and it consistently shows drops in car use (which we know One Dulwich are strongly in favour of). They will be pleased.

Finally tried Soderberg the other day. It's really nice and they have music, pizzas and drinks on Wednesday nights. Shame they pavement has been getting dug up ever since they opened. It must be effecting footfall.

@Rockets: all those bullet points you've quoted above (without sources) suggest that there has been no measurable increases in traffic except for a small blip on one street in June 2021 (which it has been suggested was to do with light phasing, since corrected). You have also completely ignored the large amount of vehicle count data that does exist, and the broad body of academic research. Look a lot like you're searching for single data points, which might prove your prejudice. The only thing that says what you think it does (although still in reference to only one section of road across a wide area) is: "Telematics data (based upon estimating volumes of traffic using GPS data from cars) suggests that volumes of cars only may have increased by over 20% on Dulwich Common between Croxted Road and Lordship Lane. It does not record LGVs or HGVs. " I would love to know the source of this. I'm sure they'll accept any new data showing LTNs to be effective as readily as they they have the existing data on the Dulwich LTN demonstrating decreases in the number of car journeys. It's good to hear that they have concluded LTNs are effective in general though, and are no longer disputing existing research.

Whilst some are railing against measures to reduce car use…. U.K. Climate Watchdog Urges Much Stronger Measures To Reduce Car Use https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/06/28/uk-climate-watchdog-urges-much-stronger-measures-to-reduce-car-use/amp/

No it doesn’t. You know that’s not what the research says. It’s been shown to have positive effects in general, not just within the LTNs. Literally all the academic research. If we remove LTNs and do nothing else, it will increase car use, increase road accidents and discourage active travel. So if ‘One’ are calling for LTNs to be removed, but say they are in favour of reducing car use, what are going to campaign for in their place? In those areas where they’ve been successful in removing car restrictions, the answer has of course been absolutely nothing.

That might improve flow (good), but what would you do to reduce cars use, improve road safety and encourage more walking and cycling?

That is anecdote. I am very sorry to hear about your mother, but it is too many cars which are causing that pollution - which has been a problem on the South Circular for a very long time. I would 100% support a proposal to reduce that traffic. I suspect 'One' and it's supporters would not, if it involved restricting car use in any way.

"what...One Dulwich are looking for is a more considered solution to road usage" ...which is what? In every area in which they have successfully had LTNs removed, they have not gone on to campaign for anything else to replace them. Rhetoric aside, they only define themselves in opposition to LTNs. They say they want to reduce car use... how exactly? Do any of their supporters actually agree that they should use their cars less? I don't believe it and more importantly their actions demonstrate that they don't mean it. And regardless of anecdotes and unevidenced claims made repeatedly on this forum, there is a body of evidence now that all shows LTNs achieve their aims. Aims that 'One' claim to support.

Except it's not a matter of opinion. One Dulwich say that they oppose LTNs and would remove them. We know from vehicle counts and academic research that LTNs reduce road injuries, reduce car use and increase active travel. So what are 'One' proposing to replace LTNs with? In all the areas where the 'One' groups have been successful in having LTNs removed, they've quickly gone very quiet, and nothing has been put in their place. So their actions and (lack of) solutions, are completely at odds with their rhetoric. They literally support actions which objectively, demonstrably, would increase pollution, road danger and car use, and which reduce active travel.

Response to what? A load of false and / or unevidenced claims about the harm LTNs do? They say they want to reduce car use, and improve safety for those travelling by foot or bike, whilst opposing measures which have been proven to do both. There is very little to engage with. I would have a lot more respect for them, if they just said "go away, I like driving my car".

...the same old claims that are demonstrably untrue. This bit was interesting though: "we fully support the Council’s policies of reducing car use, reducing carbon emissions, and making cycling and walking safer". Just not in any practical, or tangible way whatsoever. And certainly not if it means reallocating any space so as to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles.

Must try this, thanks Humdinger

I also went there on a freebie, so you may be right!

Geofencing / speed limiters should be standard on all new cars. Crazy that use such technology on electric scooters but not motor vehicles.

Wow, that's terrible.

We shouldn't accept dangerous driving just because it's a 'busy road'.

Who has said that riding a powered bike on a pavement is not inconsiderate? So why suggest that they have? This is, very clearly, a 'strawman' rhetorical device. So is using a title that suggests lot's of e-bikes driving on lot's of pavements, when relaying a tale of an electric bike being ridden on the pavement. In answer to the question, yes I live in ED and have done for several decades. I've never had someone ride passed me on the pavement endangering or alarming me, but perhaps I'm incredibly lucky? By all means criticise someone who is behaving dangerously. But I'm not interested in hearing yet more "cyclists running a mock - it' no longer safe to walk on the streets' type stuff, which is what the misleading title implies. If you look at this forum, one might be forgiven for thinking that bikes are causing significant harm to others, out of all proportion to say, private motor vehicles. If you believe that, then yes, there are some clear cognitive biases at play imo; because there is plenty of objective evidence that it is not the case.

No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess. You may not have consciously constructed your post in this way, but I suspect you're just extremely accustomed to this framing of anything to do with 'cyclists' (aka people travelling on a bike) that it comes quite naturally. It's predictable, often repeated and tedious. Like saying: Title: Rollerbladers attacking park users I saw a fight in the park the other day. The instigator was a rollerblader. Is this a general problem? To those who think that it's ok for rollerbladers to attack park users... well, enough said!

I suspect that with the cost of living crisis, we may start to see crime rates trending up across the UK. Crime stats are a bit of a lagging indicator however, so I guess time will tell.

I think they have an 'air cooling' system - which isn't very good.

It's the interpretation of the academics who undertook the study actually. But I'm sure you are more qualified to interpret their findings than they are.

The original post relayed an anecdote about a careless individual behaving badly. Of course, that immediately got turned into a tribal debate about 'cyclists' and 'motorists' (who are most often the same people, at different times). So instead of a post being about inconsiderate behaviour, it becomes about 'us' versus 'them'. The title was constructed to encourage this, by suggesting that this single incident, was about something else - a widespread, regular and repeated problem. I can confidently say that I have never once come close to being hit by a cyclist whilst walking on the pavement in several decades living here. Sometimes people behave badly. No one should ride an e-bike on the pavement. But there are several, obvious and tedious rhetorical slights of hand and / or cognitive errors at play here. Group attribution error, alongside confirmation bias, leads many to notice and remember infringements by individuals travelling on bike and then ascribe it to a whole group of ‘bloody cyclists’ (often while ignoring, or quickly forgetting the myriad of regular and far more dangerous driving infringements, likely by the same individuals)... See also, fundamental attribution error, out-group bias and theories on 'othering' generally. So yes, 'a guy (who was travelling by bike) passed me on the pavement'. Great story. But not 'Electric bikes being ridden on pavements'. ...unless someone seriously wants to argue that this is a widespread, regular and repeated problem that is making walking in ED dangerous? I don't see evidence of it personally. Again great story though. Let's please have lot's more 'an incident annoyed me' posts.

It also measures all miles travelled. It includes journeys out of London (which likely are the longest journeys and one's that the LTN isn't going to impact). So for local journey's the effect is probably larger than the average 6% reduction. It's also only one study, which is part of a much bigger body of work, all of which suggest LTNs are effective.