Earl Aelfheah

Recommend Vits + Kicks

I suspect the reason that Southwark haven't done this, is because of the inevitable protestations about 'loss of car parking'. So they end up on the pavement.

There aren't marked spaces on the pavement for hire bikes. Only for the scooters. Hire bikes can be left anywhere. If every street had a couple of marked bays in the road specifically for hire bikes, and you were fined by the bike provider for not leaving them in a bay (as with the scooters), then this would largely solve the problem. You have to have enough bays though, otherwise the bikes lose their usefulness / convenience.

There goes the neighbourhood!

I remember having it drummed into us constantly at school not to play in the gravel pits. I grew up in the early 80s, so perhaps it was due to the '76 generation's shenanigans.

People need to be able to control their dogs. If they can't, they shouldn't have them off the lead.

The answer is to provide marked, on street parking bays for them, as they do in Camden. There are none for the hire bikes and the scooter bays are for some reason on the pavement, not the road. Every street should have one or two parking spaces on the street marked out for hire bikes.

Hasn't parking on double yellow lines and / or across driveways always risked fines?

Thanks Rockets, that's helpful. I'm pretty dubious of Southwark News reports on LTNs, as they've run a campaign against them that's included very misleading, sometimes false reporting. It's a shame that they quote the report out of context, and don't link to it, but not that surprising perhaps. Reading the report, it sounds as though the issues with increased bus times referred to in the Southwark News headline were prior to the changes Southwark put in place in March. Although it does sound that Croxted road Northbound (whilst improving), may still be experiencing increased traffic. So perhaps the headline ought to be - a very successful traffic reduction scheme isn't 100% perfect and there continues to be monitoring and some adjustments being made. That is pretty shocking. But Rahx3 - even if you think Southwark News are running a campaign against LTNs it's pretty compelling what the TFL report says isn't it? Again this is from the TFL report that Cllr Leeming wanted to not be sent to residents before he redacted it.... Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion That's not spin or part of a misleading campaign - that statement comes from TFL about the cause of the Croxted Road problems - laying the blame clearly at the Dulwich Village LTN and it is categoric proof that the LTNs in Dulwich are causing the issues, which is the polar opposite of what your fellow LTN supporter Cllr Richard Leeming has been telling/misleading people about the traffic on Croxted Road. This is why Leeming was so desperate to redact the TFL report and said "this must not be sent to the residents". Why? Because it exposes the lies the council and councillors have been telling people about the impact of LTNs and shows that LTNs do cause displacement, do delay buses and do increase pollution in other areas. From day 1 the council have been manipulating everything to do with LTNs to paint them in a positive light and confirms what many of us have feared - that the council and pro-LTN supporters have been lying to people to defend the LTNs that create quiet roads for them and increase congestion for everyone else and that is a disgrace and the council and the pro-LTN supporters should be ashamed of themselves. I don't know how Cllr Leeming has the power to redact a tfl report. The fact that we can read it online suggests that hasn't happened. The point I was making is that Southwark have responded to the issues raised by tfl and made changes accordingly. The tfl report suggests that the tweaks made in March have been broadly successful and that they continue to work with Lambeth and Southwark. The fact is that data show a broadly positive impact on traffic reduction across the area and an increase in walking and cycling. The 'shocking' news is that they have continued to monitor and adjust the scheme, in order to improve it over time.

Not sure how anyone could really object to this. But I guess the usual pro-car dominance types will instinctually oppose.

I don't live on this forum.

I belive this is the report you require https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VhHc02WXeovZL02aXi0iLWssPdgcuSiy/view?s=09 And Rahx3 in case you can't/won't click through to it here is that it says on Page 6 of TFL's report: Root Cause of Delays Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion. Pretty compelling huh? I wonder how the councillors and pro-LTN lobby are going to try and spin their way out of that one....... Thanks Rockets, that's helpful. I'm pretty dubious of Southwark News reports on LTNs, as they've run a campaign against them that's included very misleading, sometimes false reporting. It's a shame that they quote the report out of context, and don't link to it, but not that surprising perhaps. Reading the report, it sounds as though the issues with increased bus times referred to in the Southwark News headline were prior to the changes Southwark put in place in March. Although it does sound that Croxted road Northbound (whilst improving), may still be experiencing increased traffic. So perhaps the headline ought to be - a very successful traffic reduction scheme isn't 100% perfect and there continues to be monitoring and some adjustments being made. That is pretty shocking.

Southwark News has been campaigning against LTNs in Dulwich since the beginning. They've printed lot's of stuff that is demonstrably false, or misleading before. There is no link to this TFL report. can you provide one?

Just your friendly reminder that there is a data dashboard for those interested in objectively assessing what's happened with traffic. Vehicle counts show a reduction in car journeys across the area since the LTNs came in. Walking and cycling is also up. There isn't a great conspiracy. The motivation for LTNs was to make getting about the area on foot or by bike a little safer and easier, and to reduce the number of car journeys. This is exactly what it has achieved.

And I?ve said I don?t think it?s reasonable to let air out of tyres. So really all you?re asking me to change my mind on is the ?reasonableness? of driving an SUV in London.if you want to explain why I should do that, I?m all ears.

I?m pretty sure it?s ok to reinflate a tyre that?s lost air Rockets. That?s why they sell air compressors and why they have them on petrol station forecourts.

@Spartacus - I agree it?s not a reasonable thing to do, as I?ve said. But if someone can drive off failing to notice a Leaflet on their windscreen, or the fact that the have a flat tyre, there are already problems. I?m not defending the behaviour of the activists - but if one is to criticise their behaviour as dangerous and antisocial, then you can?t ignore the fact that driving an SUV in London is also dangerous and antisocial.

Btw Rockets. They?re not cutting someone?s brake cables, they?re letting down a tyre and placing a leaflet on the window. I don?t think someone is going to drive off at speed and career into a family. I know it?s hot, but come on.

You can go all hyperbolic about it if you want, but the fact is people will look back and judge our inaction in the face of the climate crisis, far more harshly than they will a few well meaning but misguided individuals letting down tyres and leaving a leaflet on the windscreen of a few (frankly ridiculous, dangerous and unnecessary) over sized vehicles.

As I said, I?m ambivalent. I don?t think it?s particularly reasonable behaviour, but then I don?t think it?s particularly reasonable to drive an SUV around London either.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3 - would you be sitting on the fence if it > was groups of people taking direct action against > cyclists riding on pavements? > > Ambivalence is what let's these idiots get away > with it and the problem with the type of people > who do this sort of thing is that they don't know > where to stop and somehow their illegal actions > are for some greater good. Depends if it was reasonable and proportionate.

I don't get why people want 100s if not 1000s of close up pictures of their own face. Behaviours that would have been considered so narcissistic as to cause you to worry for your friends well being / mental state not so long ago, now seem common place. I've seen several places (bars, restaurants, 'experiences') which appear to have been set up almost exclusively for the Instagram opportunities. Some people appear happy to have very few unmediated, authentic experiences. I sound very old :-)

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Climate activists is possibly closer rahx3 > although its still vandalism of other's property > so it shouldn't be applauded. Yes, It's probably better to call them 'climate activists'. I am not applauding it btw, although I do admit to feeling ambivalent. It's causing inconvenience more than damage, and I suspect that as the full impacts of climate change start to bite, we'll look back and ask why people weren't rioting in the streets demanding action, rather then why people were taking the 'radical' action of deflating the tyres of SUVs. Also, if it puts people off driving obviously unsuitable vehicles around London... On the other hand, it's not likely to make much of an impact and it's going to alienate a lot of people, rather than win them over to the urgency of the situation. Feels a bit mean spirited, divisive and ultimately counter productive. So like I say - I'm a bit on the fence.

I'm not sure it's accurate to call the people letting down tyres 'climate vandals'. It would be more accurate to call them 'SUV vandals'. Arguably the SUV drivers are closer to being 'climate vandals' if anyone is in this scenario.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's presumptious. Okay, perhaps many should be > less reliant on cars but on the other hand some > are extremely reliant. I wonder how these > activists decide who should be on the receiving > end of their actions or is it just completely > random? For those who are disabled or who have > very ill relatives and might need to get to a > hospital in the early hours, this is beyond > inconsiderate and, as you say, potentially > dangerous. They target SUVs as I understand it. It's pretty difficult to argue that people need to drive massive SUVs in London.