Earl Aelfheah

Peer reviewed research dismissed. Data showing a consistent upward trend in cycling with London from 2015 dismissed. It's pointless isn't it?

So increased every year since 2015 except a small dip during the lockdown. After which it increased again this in 2020?

She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not 'awaiting peer review'. Almost every published academic in this area gets accused of 'bias' in this debate and it's nonsense.

I mean, it doesn't seem that crazy that a cycling charity looking to develop a transport policy, might want to engage an award winning public policy expert.

I'm not sure her working with transport charities invalidates her published, peer reviewed research. She is an expert on transport policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Aldred The problem is, most people who are experts in transport planning, management and policy tend not to advocate for more car use in cities. So there are two conclusions you can reach, either: 1) They're all biased and research cannot be trusted, or 2) Their expertise has informed their view in a way that we should probably pay attention to But then we have all had enough of experts.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > doesnt her mum live on calton? > > when the review comes we need people involved with > a fresh objective eye. Rachel Aldred? I didn't know that. The problem is as shown above - most of those who publish proper research in this area are dismissed as 'activists', because it all tends to point in the same direction when it comes to the best ways to encourage walking and cycling and reduce our reliance on cars. It's not making car use as convenient and comfortable as possible.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The long and expensive redesign of that junction > increased the problems there. Which suited some > who always wanted a more 'villagey' suburb. > Unfortunately because of the local geography, > parks, golf course, sports grounds, private > playing fields The effects of that small closure > had knock on effects that spread like ripples on a > stormy lake, affecting many many more people than > benefited. Simple solutions say calton using > gilkes to exit onto Dulwich village thus > simplifying the village junction, Allowing P4 to > use court lane for faster transit nearer more > people, Coaches and parents having drop off points > with freshair walk to school, having actual bike > lanes, banning on road parking etc etc You're suggesting opening Gilkes Road from Calton Avenue an directing buses down Court Lane, so that it doesn't serve the village? Would Court lane only be open to buses, or are you saying that we should roll back the filters and open a previously closed road additionally? Where would the coach and private school drop off points be and where would these freshair walks be? Would they be on no through roads? I'm in favour of actual, segregated bike lanes, and removing on street parking, but if you think LTNs are controversial, wait until you tell people they can no longer park outside their houses. That would also have a knock on on surrounding streets - I guarantee that many of the same arguments deployed against LTNS would be used to resist the removal of on street parking and segregated bike lanes that also remove parking. I think you're suggestions are in many ways more radical than the LTNS. I suspect they'd be politically more sensitive as well.

@Rockets - TFL data shows a sustained long term trend in the growth of cycling, linked to improvements in infrastructure... details towards the bottom of page 15: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdf

Hi Rockets, I am not sure you're right about this. According to TFL Quarter 4 of the 2018/19 financial year saw an increase in the average daily cycle-km in central London of 4 per cent with respect to the same quarter in 2017/18. Across the whole of London, 2018 saw the highest growth observed in cycling volume since monitoring began (in 2015), increasing almost 5 per cent from the previous year and exceeding for the first time on record an average daily volume of more than 4 million cycle-km. Also, Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers.

There is already a thread on this. Just search 'Rye Lane closure - express your views'. It's in the Lounge. [EDITED to add link: /forum/read.php?20,2205881,page=1 ]

.

Here's a list of cities that have done well: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/6432/london-ranked-outside-top-50-cities-for-cycling-worldwide Paris has seen a massive transformation in recent years. So have a number of German cities, including Berlin. Obviously in the Netherlands they have completely embraced cycling - and Amsterdam, although it did have more of a cycling culture to start with, still had to fight opposition to road changes in the 70s - it wasn't always as it is now and it could have gone in a different direction. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's such a complex issue and I don't think those > implementing LTNs have the first clue what the > root of people's obsession/reliance on the car is. Every city has grappled with the same thing. I don't buy the 'it wouldn't work in London' argument. There is lot's of research on how you get people to be less reliant on cars. As long as driving is the most convenient way to get about, lot's of people will tend to chose the path of least resistance.

Commuting has increased and diversified as a result of segregated cycle lanes ( http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160511RCSpaper-final.pdf ). But to commute in is slightly different to making local journeys. From here it requires a certain level of fitness and 'logistics' (showers, lockers at your destination etc). There are also still many hairy junctions / main roads despite improvements. And outside of the centre, we've done very little - LTNs are a way of trying to address that. Studies of LTNs show an increase in 'normal' people cycling locally, especially kids, when compared with control sites (I know people will say it isn't so). We know what you need to do to make it easier, safer and a more 'normal' activity. You create quieter routes, where traffic is restricted or removed.

The Whitty thing is just appalling. Seen video of a crowd of people outside his house this morning chanting 'traitor'. these people should be arrested in my opinion. It's targeted harassment of a good man, doing a very difficult job in the service of the public.

Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) person, it's not appealing. We need to make it a safe easy, every day activity and that means reallocating some space away from cars and towards walking and cycling. It's a small part of the whole picture, but an important part. But again, you can only do that if the minority of car drivers give something up. I'm not sure they will. Not really. Not to the extent required.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That whilst people say they want fewer cars > > I think people are saying they want fewer (local) > car journeys - but that doesn't actually > necessarily mean fewer cars. Many people have cars > to drive a few, necessary (to them) trips - may be > happy to cut down local use (if there are > sufficient effective alternatives which they can > use - some are too old or frail to cycle the local > hills for instance and may not be able to walk > far) but still need a car. > > It is wrong to assume that less car use (until and > only if it's vastly less) will necessary translate > into fewer cars owned in areas where public > transport is more limited and you can't readily > walk anywhere you need to (or the environs other > than round Tooley St, to be exact). Yes, that's what I meant. Fewer cars driving around, not necessarily a reduction in car ownership. Although personally, I would like to see the latter too. The thing is, you won't reduce the number of cars driving around without reducing road capacity / restricting their use in some way. Most people could (most people do) manage without a car in London. Not all of course. But it's more difficult / less convenient at key times.

I like the way the UK isn't blindly 'patriotic' like some are in the US for example. I love the fact that we're self depreciating, self critical, a bit wry / cynical about our nation. Make's me proud to be British. ;-)

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile, the council makes ?3million in a couple > of months. > Spot the winner. > And the losers. > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > To post the other side of the argument as > > Legalalien suggests: > > > > The changes have been rushed in, with no > baseline > > data and no proper analysis of the effects. If > you > > close some side roads, even allowing for some > > 'evaporation' there will inevitably be > > displacement. The main roads already have > > illegally high levels of pollution and so this > > will only make things worse. Local, public > > transport options are inadequate, so the > > alternatives are limited. Most people will not > > cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast > > moving vehicles and even the filtered streets > > still have large vehicles travelling along > them, > > some at speed. > > It is politically unrealistic to think that you > > can get people to alter their behaviour in ways > > that will significantly inconvenience them and > so > > the LTNs are a waste of money which will only > > cause division. I don't' actually hold this view. I'm making the counter argument as Legalalien suggested (but only malumbu an I (I think both broadly in favor of LTNs?) have taken them up on). That said, I am starting to come round to believing the last bit - that it might be unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them. Whilst people say they want fewer cars, they generally aren't willing to forgo their own, or wrestle with the difficult trade offs and compromises that achieving this inevitably entails. Ultimately, I suspect we're kind of screwed.

To post the other side of the argument as Legalalien suggests: The changes have been rushed in, with no baseline data and no proper analysis of the effects. If you close some side roads, even allowing for some 'evaporation' there will inevitably be displacement. The main roads already have illegally high levels of pollution and so this will only make things worse. Local, public transport options are inadequate, so the alternatives are limited. Most people will not cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast moving vehicles and even the filtered streets still have large vehicles travelling along them, some at speed. It is politically unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them and so the LTNs are a waste of money which will only cause division.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ab29, heartened that you agree with me on > some things and not others, that?s as it should > be. Less tribalism and entrenched positions, more > getting to yes. > > Perhaps we should have a school-like experiment > where we all spend a day arguing the other side?s > position? In theory a good thing but I imagine it > would descend into sarcasm and weak > spoof-Twitter-account type humour within 5 mins. A > pity. It would be a good start if we could agree that personal attacks and name calling are a bad thing, instead of patting those responsible for it on the back.

@ab29 - you have complained about people being disrespectful and you have repeatedly resorted to personal attacks. This: "I have called you "arrogant and selfish? ... a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist" (in capital letters) and I stand by it... It is not, however a 'name calling' as you claim". I mean really? I don?t agree with aspects of the changes and their implementation. I agreed with @legalalien that I would support a roll back of phase 2 whilst more analysis was done on phase 1. I?ve said that I might be persuaded to support an alternative plan. I am disappointed that One Dulwich is encouraging people to back a return to the previous state, following the pattern of every other ?One? campaign across London. I am critical of this organisation. I have a different view regarding the need to reduce car usage. You cannot reduce the number of journeys whilst increasing road capacity and making it easier to drive in my opinion. You also cannot encourage active travel without creating at least some quieter routes, with less motor traffic (in my opinion). That doesn?t mean that this particular scheme doesn?t have flaws, trade offs, or compromises like any other. This is why I would dearly like people to work to improve it rather than completely scrap it and return to how thing were. I have not at any point resorted to personal attacks, except perhaps now, because I think it's reasonable to call out your behaviour. Especially when you admonish others for not being respectful.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're vaxxified > And they're ancient and they drive an ice cream van :-)

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > notimpressed Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, most folk in Brighton aren't middle class > bores > > You obviously haven't been there since the turn of > the millennium.. :-)

re. Clean Air Dulwich - I'm not that surprised they've limited comments on their Twitter feed. If you've even remotely dipped a toe in anti-LTN Twitter, you'll see some pretty vicious stuff from a significant minority on the lunatic fringes of the debate.