Earl Aelfheah

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

The idea that because any one thing doesn?t make ?climate change history?, it?s not worth doing, is a manifesto of inaction and dispair. May as well burn tyres as to stop doing so doesn?t ?solve? climate change.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We should probably ignore the contribution local > car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re > not the *only* contributor. > > No no, we must focus only on the use of private > vehicles locally, solve that and climate change is > history. > This is a thread about LTNs. They don?t have any impact on boilers or planes. They do reduce the number of cars driving around. But we mustn?t make small, positive steps forward unless we can 100% solve the problem of climate change. In fact, best to reverse policies that help the environment.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on > > aeroplanes has no or only one child, is > vegetarian > > or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most > places, > > gives to charity and meticulously recycles or > > reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise > one > > single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't > > anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others > are, > > and is making headway in lighter aircraft, > greener > > fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc. > > Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue > policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car > usage etc though. ...or simply not campaign to reverse policies that reduce car use and increase active travel.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on > aeroplanes has no or only one child, is vegetarian > or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most places, > gives to charity and meticulously recycles or > reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise one > single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't > anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others are, > and is making headway in lighter aircraft, greener > fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc. Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car usage etc though.

I'm absolutely sure Rockets will have an argument for why cars don't contribute to climate change and the evidence is fake, but: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-climate-change-cut-carbon-emissions-from-your-commute

We should probably ignore the contribution local car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re not the *only* contributor. It makes sense, because it?s been well established that the most effective way we can tackle the climate crisis is through whataboutery, deflection and rhetorical device, rather than action on the sources of pollution.

Extreme weather to become the norm: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns If we're not happy with measures which reduce car use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in time?

Saw this https://twitter.com/rm_leeming/status/1420504470492958724?s=21 It makes you think that we might need to start ditching the SUVs for local journeys, even if it is slightly more convenient than walking. Or we could continue as we are, swapping them out for kayaks come 2050.

Apparently they're opening it to taxis too.

I hadn?t heard about it before now tbh. Very sad though. Thoughts go out to friends and family.