Earl Aelfheah

I would be genuinely surprised if the reduction in road capacity hasn't lead to a reduction (at least to some extent) in the number of car journeys. I know that's not the only consideration, but on the narrow point about behaviour change - it's pretty clear to me that there has been some degree of 'modal shift'. This is important because, that first small change in behaviour is very difficult and tends to have a momentum that builds on itself.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But rahrahrah, > > Surely even you must concede that an awful lot of > people are getting caught in the crosshairs of > this so called steady, incremental change. Indeed, > they are being punished, accused of being lazy and > entitled and simply not caring. > > Your tone has been pretty consistent all along but > others seem all too ready to generally trash > objections and those objecting, and seem incapable > of acknowledging the flaws in the current state of > affairs. Revolutions do not always work, the > results can be very different from those envisaged > by the 'revolutionaries' and not always for the > better either. I'd really like to see some of the > zealotry and wish lists replaced with an effort to > really address practical realities and the detail. There are definitely problems with how some of these changes have been implemented. I'm sure there will be adjustments and that's probably right. My own view is that I'm broadly in favour of LTNs in principle - whilst I accept that any individual scheme may have issues and that these should be reviewed and changes made where there is evidence that they're not working. There is lots of hyperbole and name calling in the debate unfortunately and that's clearly not helpful. Twitter is unbelievable. It comes from all quarters of course, but I have to say (I know you'd expect me to say this), that there are some particularly nasty insults and accusations being thrown about by those who are anti any kind of road changes. I mean, I guess that's just the internet unfortunately.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Worth remembering that at the start of the > pandemic we were told that 20,000 deaths would be > ''a good outcome'', so there's every right for > people to question why we ended up with 110k more. > > It's no coincidence that this Gov is avoiding a > public enquiry, as it's fairly obvious where the > blame for a large proportion of those extra deaths > lie, the repeated mistake of late lockdowns. > Whereas the success of the vaccine is a collective > effort where the majority of the plaudits should > go to science and the NHS, the reason for the late > lockdowns stops at No 10's door. > Let's see if Dominic Cummings is true to his word > when he's interviewed by MPs later this month, and > spills the beans as to how those late lockdown > decisions came about... Apparently the success of the vaccine rollout (specifically, the UK getting ahead on ordering doses) is partly down to the 2011 film 'Contagion' https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd love to see some sort of cargo bike > rental/share scheme locally... > > This is a great idea - exactly the sort of thing > that the Council should be thinking about funding > (or part funding a private business) as part of > its strategy. I've got pretty good at two > panniers and a backpack but for really heavy or > bulky items it would be great to have another > option. Yeah, great idea. Also more investment in car clubs etc. The idea that everyone needs their own car is crazy.

Agree it's not about laziness or not caring. I've never suggested this and I don't criticise people who drive - I do so myself. One person gives up a car and that makes space for several bike parking spaces on a street. Not everyone needs to do this, just a handful and you free space for a number of bikes for example. No one thinks we're going to rid the world of cars, but we can reduce the number of cars and the number of car journeys. Slowly and steadily, through incremental change. For example, I used to drive my kids to a club in the Village, I now walk or cycle with them because it's quicker and easier with the LTN. So do many of the other parents at the same club - it's very noticeable as there used to be chaos at drop off with all the cars - now there aren't enough bike parking spaces. That's a probably 20 or so fewer short car journeys. Not much, but there will be other people making similar little changes, and so it starts to add up.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also as Otto2 was posting earlier some people with > cargo bikes currently stored in their houses would > be very keen to use cycle hangers but the > challenge is, given the huge waiting list for > cycle hangar spaces, can the council devote (what > looks like) three of 4 normal cycle storage spots > in a hangar to a single cargo bike - there isn't > the infrastructure in place to aptly support > demand for normal bikes yet alone cargo bikes. Agree with this. On street bike storage needs to be massively increased.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every time I see a pro-LTN twitter groups posting > pictures and videos from the Townley Road junction > of children on bikes I do chuckle and think to > myself that all it is validating is that modal > shift only happens for those who attend some of > the most expensive private schools in the country > (where finding places to store bikes at school is > not an issue) and are able to cycle from some of > the largest houses in London (which also have no > problem storing bikes). Most Londoners (and in particular, most of the less affluent Londoners) don't own a car. So it kind of makes sense that any modal shift will be concentrated on those who actually own and use vehicles.

They're definitely part of the change that's needed, sure.

I do find it kind of weird that the market hasn't found a more efficient model of personal transport in cities. Cars are so incredibly inefficient, both in terms of energy and space. Most streets are absolutely packed with expensive, rarely used, heavily depreciating vehicles. When they do go somewhere (usually 80% empty), most of the energy is used to move the vehicle (rather than the person). And then there are the substantial 'externalities'. And on top of all of it, it's not even a particularly enjoyable or fast way to get around a big city. Any economists out there able to explain it?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that cargo bikes are for everyone.

I think it just seems worse after the hiatus. But in reality it was pretty bad pre lockdown (and it?s not back to those levels yet).

@ab29 - feel free to apologise for your completely unnecessary name calling at any time by the way.

Just seen that Dulwich alliance are calling for more parking on Lordship Lane whilst also saying there is too much traffic. Surely, there is a fundamental contradiction with trying to reduce traffic whilst also making it easier to drive and providing additional parking? Is it that people want greater car convenience or fewer car journeys? I honestly struggle to see how you get both.

Thank goodness Brexit has saved the British fishing industry. Next stop, UK farming

It's just that this thread is about actual signs, covered in slogans, which you seem to be in favour of.

@ab29 - you've suggested I'm arrogant and selfish. Would be good of you to explain that

Which slogan?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think fixing the traffic issues is that > binary, however obvious and point-scorey the > slogan may be. slogans like 'stop the LTN Congestion' or 'all streets matter' you mean?

...and you don't need to start a new thread every time you want to make a point on LTNS (or any other topic).

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "claiming there are too many threads" - you are > absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish > individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central. > > > > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is interesting to see the various methods > > adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN > > supporters- denial of available evidence, > > persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ > > trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ > > claiming there are too many threads, and now > > defacing posters displayed that are objecting > to > > the current incarnation of LTNs. It just > doesn't > > feel very adult, democratic or like there is a > > willingness to face the flaws and have a > rethink. > > > > heartblock Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark > > includes > > > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > > > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on > > Desenfans > > > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road > because > > of > > > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on > Grove > > > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > > > The report ends with a request to make > changes > > due > > > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > > > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing > > delays, > > > that are very concerning and leading to > patient > > > safety concerns' > > > > > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the > > hard > > > closures, they consider them to contribute to > a > > > higher risk to life. Would like to know why you're accusing me of being selfish? I drive, I don't live on an LTN. I'm personally inconvenienced by the road changes, but I also recognise the need to make driving less convenient if we want any chance of reducing the number of journeys. It is possible to have a different view and to debate that without making it about some innate character flaw or resorting to name calling.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?my point was that many of you > use this, air quality and other factors as the > reason you oppose anything that restricts > vehicles. It is notable how some people have suddenly become very concerned about pollution. Not enough to give up their car, but enough to campaign against schemes that make driving less convenient.

Btw, making it at easy as possible to drive around London by opposing any restrictions on motor vehicles, is an odd way to reduce emissions.

Another thread? You couldn?t have just added your thoughts to the 10 or so existing ones?

Less sunlit uplands, more the uplands pub circa 2000

Same