Earl Aelfheah

Clearly they do reduce traffic within the LTN / on minor roads. They also reduce the number of motor cars generally, reduce road injuries and increase active travel. It's true that they don't lead to cars moving around the area more quickly - but you cannot make driving more convenient and also reduce the number of people driving. The ULEZ seeks to tackle pollution, which obviously doesn't reduce traffic, but does mitigate some of it's impact. That said, I suspect you'll see the ULEZ extension lead to some reduction in car ownership.

The Lime bikes (electric hire bikes) have recently extended their operating zone to cover Dulwich and Peckham. They're great for short journey's as you don't have to worry about your bike being nicked. Good for getting to the tube at Brixton or to Peckham.

BTW - in positive news, the electric Lime hire bikes have recently extended their operating zone to cover most of Dulwich and Peckham. Unfortunately it doesn't yet include Herne Hill (for the station), but is great for getting to Peckham or Brixton tube.

Out of interest, do those who oppose the efforts to reduce car use locally, support the ULEZ extension?

The evidence so far is that traffic has dropped across the wider area, and active travel has increased significantly. EDG is the exception and one of the few perimeter roads where there does seem to have been an increase in traffic. That needs to be addressed - but the evidence on the Dulwich LTN, and on LTNs more generally, is that they reduce car use and increase active travel. I also expect (and again, evidence from similar, longer standing schemes would support the expectation) that modal shift will continue over time - possibly even pick up momentum. I know a number of people (myself included), who have changed their behaviour since the introduction of LTNs and further encouraged by the pending ULEZ extension, are looking get rid of their cars altogether. Of course this is anecdotal, and time will. What will definitely not improve upon the previous situation is returning everything to the previous state. By definition.

The IPCC?s report on the worsening climate emergency should be a wake up call. Amongst other things, we absolutely need to reduce car use. This simply will not be done by opposing schemes that make driving less convenient and active travel safer and easier. The Government?s Independent Climate Committee are clear that moving to electric cars (whilst an important), is not enough. We need to cut down on car miles travelled and particularly on short local car journeys. We also need to stop the growth of SUVs https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/04/20/we-must-cut-car-use-to-save-the-planet-agrees-uk-government/

This seems pretty emphatic - 'Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible ? IPCC?s starkest warning yet': https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn [edited to add precis / article title]

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But still this all irrelevant to LTNs and is > simply about petty jealousy I love the idea that you think people are jealous of those driving around London in off road vehicles. Everyone would naturally chose to drive around in a dangerous, clownishly oversized vehicle - they just mustn't be able to afford it. Of course!

It's relevant in that the significant increase in vehicle size has a material impact on congestion, on danger to other road users (discouraging active travel) and on pollution levels.

But sure, huge off road vehicles in London are all about protecting pedestrians 🙄

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SUV as a term covers everything from Hummers to > 'small' SUVs which effectively replace (and indeed > many are smaller) than standard people carriers, > formerly the go-to car for those with families - > and much smaller then large estate cars. They have > a very similar profile to vans, including driver > height. For older people they are much easier to > get in and out of (which believe me is an issue) - > and they are also much easier to take move babies > in and out of. There are luxury (and big) SUVs of > course. If a 'proper' SUV they may have some off > road capability (less use around town perhaps, > although I have been grateful for 4WD on the few > snow days around here). But I had to park up in a > muddy field recently and 4WD was a boon. As it was > recently on motorway driving in intense rain. > Their rather stately profile additionally probably > discourages 'boy racer' mentalities, which hot > hatches certainly don't. 'SUV driver' is > increasingly a short hand for 'people of a class I > don't want to associate with' - and such a usage > is a lazy shorthand for the class warriors that > occasionally lurk on these pages. This is not a class issue. They add to pollution, congestion and road injuries. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities ? A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving.?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think they're vain or status seeking - > more they've become normalised and accepted. Many > manufacturers have phased out normal 'family > sized' cars and only produce SUVs so they've > essentially become 'what people drive'. There is > also the fact that the growing number of SUVs > already on the streets makes it more likely that > people will buy SUVs too - because the 'higher > position makes it easier to see round the other > cars' etc. Also people believe that they're safer > for them driving and their families as occupants. Yeah, I agree with this. They have no place in cities though. The point on people feeling they?re safer driving around London in massive off roaders makes me think of this

@Abe - SUVs are twice as likely to kill pedestrians in a collision. How is their size helpful in terms of protecting pedestrians exactly? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128.amp

Cars have not got bigger to ?protect pedestrians?. Their excessive height means head and upper body injuries. SUVs are twice as likely to kill pedestrians in a crash and they?re much more likely to mount pavements, crash through barriers etc. Crumple zones protect those in the car. If a car hits a pedestrian at a speed where the front crumples, the pedestrian is in big trouble. There is absolutely no good reason to be filling the streets with pseudo military vehicles and if people are worried about pollution and congestion, they should consider campaigning against private SUVs in cities, rather than schemes that reduce car use, reduce accidents and increase active travel.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Presumably this is due to shortage of > drivers/staff, due to this "pingdemic". I think it > is temporary, as soon self-isolation will be > replaced by workplace testing for key workers. > > This ^^ > Train companies nationwide are reducing services > due to staff isolating. Ultimately you can either > say you'll run 4 trains an hour and then cancel > half of them (which is incredibly frustrating for > all concerned) or you reduce the service > intentionally which keeps reliability much higher. > There may only be 2 trains an hour but at least > they'll be there. I really hope this does turn out to be a temporary/ emergency change. Once bought in, these things tend to quietly become permanent. Suggest everyone writes to Helen Hayes to express their concern and make sure pressure is kept up on the rail company.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government have just published their one year > review of ?gear change? initiatives (which include > LTNS). Dulwich gets a call out: > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-ch > ange-one-year-on-review From the PM?s foreword: ?I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffc on other roads. But there is now increasing evidence that they do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like water: if you block a stream in one place, it will fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of nature. It is a product of people?s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffc falls overall.?

wordsworth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He forgot the withdrawal agreement. 😂

The government have just published their one year review of ?gear change? initiatives (which include LTNS). Dulwich gets a call out: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-change-one-year-on-review

But are you John Smith?

Not suggesting they're right or wrong, just pointing out their comments about funding.

No idea, but the quotes from the PM and other ministers seem fairly clear.

'Hastily abandoned low traffic schemes could cost councils funding' :https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/bike-blog/2021/jul/30/hastily-abandoned-low-traffic-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These guys- > > https://leylandsdm.co.uk/ That?s good, it?s been closed for a while now - glad to see it coming back to life

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is welcome news and about time. > > BBC News - Walking and biking prioritised in new > Highway Code > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450 Agreed. Kinda surprised it wasn?t already the case tbh

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Improving significantly' re: the UK's carbon > position is still not improving fast or far > enough. > > Yes plenty of other greenhouse gasses of concern > and improved modelling is needed wrt them as well; > and also the unintended (toxic) consequences to > the atmosphere of potential moves to a hydrogen > economy etc. > > This is one thread on LTNs which are about the > impact of having/not having them, air pollution, > vehicle use, CO2 and climate change (relative > importance of which depends on your personal > viewpoint perhaps). Perhaps we need others on > reducing carbon in other areas of (local) lives > if people think there's a risk of sidelining other > major CO2 contributors? > > HP Quite. Happy to discuss gas boilers and overseas travel, but not sure they?re relevant to a thread on LTNs. A cynic might feel there is some deflection going on