malumbu

Penguin - I was simply doing a service to the community and providing some clarity about emissions - carbon and air pollution. I said nothing about LTNs although I have consistently provided a view on this thread and elsewhere that measures need to be introduced to reduce the amount of car use. Ideally this should be through good citizenship - but why do we have traffic calming? Because most drivers will not keep to a safe speed. Similar can be said about both air quality and climate change. Excellent point from Dulwich Central about SUVs. No justification for many owners to have over powered and over weight vehicles when driving predominantly in urban areas - but SUVs are sold as a lifestyle/status symbol. Unnecessarily increasing CO2 emissions and contributing to climate change. As for local action, if we all drove less at a local level, nationally, and across the globe then that would good both for health and the environment. What is not to understand about this simple message? Really confused about the message on publications in professional journals. I expect that there are 100,000s of research papers published each year of which a tiny tiny fraction are flawed. Hardly a reason to cast doubt, unless it fits your agenda.

I get up when I want except on Wednesdays when I get rudely awakened by the dustmen I put my trousers on, have a cup of tea and I think about leaving the house

I stockpiled them, more tasty than toilet paper - I tried stockpiling that last year.

I wake up when my neighbour starts his motorbike. I lay there thinking when I tell him that modern vehicles no longer need warming up as they did 30 years ago, ie start your bike and go rather than leave it idling for two or three minutes. Currently 06.15, far too early. The builders then start at about 8, waking me up for a second time. The builders before that would arrive at 7, then talk for an hour, until 8. Maybe time for ear plugs.

Wow!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If just 10% of the population were to change travel behaviour, the emissions savings would be around 4% of lifecycle CO2 emissions from all car travel. Or just 0% in a fully electric or hydrogen powered environment. And CO2 emissions are irrelevant to issues of air quality. If we are concerned about healthy streets, and the citations in this and related threads of the very sad case of the girl who died of asthma would suggest we are, then this CO2 'factoid' is irrelevant to this debate. ------------------------------- Just some factual stuff today as I have have my rant against entitled motorists today, one a day is enough. The move to zero emissions road transport is to help meet our climate change targets as set down in domestic law and international targets through the 'COP' process. Improved air quality is of course a benefit - but a street full of zero emission vehicles will be just as congested as a street full of those with the internal combustion engine, and of course the electricity has to come from somewhere. Reduced car use will benefit both the climate through reduced emissions of CO2 and air quality through reduced emissions of pollutants so is a win win. We are 15 - 20 years off near 100% zero emission road vehicles, by which time motoring will have changed - autonomous vehicles, ownership models and mobility as a service. Future generations may have no need to learn to drive beyond recreation and sport. They will probably look back at the second decade of the 21st century wondering what all the fuss was about. I thoroughly recommend a test drive of an electric vehicle just for fun - I've driven most of them in my work, and I may be the only person active on this forum who has driven a hydrogen car. The Leaf was fun, driving at 20mph smiling at every one, the Ford Transit was special, Tessla Model X is just daft, due to all that silly power, not needed in an urban environment, but seeing more and more on the roads so doing something right. The same week as I first drove a Leaf I also had a go on an electric assisted bike which was also great fun.

Good heavens KK, what a thorough job. I'd still go for oil based, maybe I imagine it gives a better finish and is more durable. If you have old boards they are quite often finished with this black gunk which takes ages to get off with paint stripper, particularly now you can't get methylene chloride anymore. Also carpet tacks often left embedded. Although I don't mind a bit of distressing, and in any case you can't be too precious as you will get knocks on hard used areas like stairs.

Surely not another thread whinging about measures to curb the number of car journeys. I expect that Jeremy Clarkson may have a party for entitled motorists, it will be like UKIP/Brexit party and have only one policy Pleased that someone has pointed out that this is a Tory policy (reducing car journeys) - the bigger picture is our commitments to cut carbon emissions to combat climate change. There are better ways to discourage car use - through central fiscal measures. The government, which has a massive majority, is unlikely to fall due to LTNs. Put threads up like this, and I will post on them. Although it is getting tiresome.

Ohh, just saw on MoTD that Frank Worthington died a few days ago, a Jason King (in terms of hair and dress), but also flamboyant on the pitch https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/23/frank-worthington-former-england-leicester-forward-dies-aged-72

Ditto, yes, yes and yes. As with all wood I use minimum of three coats, primer, undercoat and gloss, and all old school oil based. Stairs get heavy traffic and will get damage. Typical repainting for the interior is every five years or so, but leave it until it needs redoing. And it is all in the preparation!

The ULEZ was designed, wrongly in my opinion in terms of pollution, to allow older petrol vehicles (up to 16 years old) on the road without charge. For those driving in urban environments diesel cars make less sense. So there is no argument that it discriminates against those on lower means. That was under the original proposals, led by a certain Prime Minister when he was Mayor.

Oh good a comedy thread, I need some light relief after all that whinging about LTNs. Some good posts correcting various urban myths. Fortunately there is common sense in government and who are not going to explore that nonsense of licensing push bikes. I too pay my taxes, and I am insured when I am on my bike. Well unless Priti Patel moves to Transport or the Treasury.... [my apologies, the subject of the thread is sensible, just some of the posts comedy] On a wider issue Vehicle Excise Duty is a complete dog's dinner; when last changed and moved away from carbon emissions (after the first year). Only zero emission vehicles are ?0. Powered two wheelers - electric scooters and twist and go electric bikes are classed as these - but are neither pavement or road legal. There's a good debate as the genie is well out of the bottle. Unlike push bikes these should be licensed and insured.

I've not been caught on Townley Road. I've got caught on other roads, received the still and thought 'damn', I must be more careful in future.

What contemptuous clap trap, do you really have the faintest idea about research? I'm stunned about the level of ignorance and as a scientist (hard scientist, test tubes and later a but of modelling, but also a fascination with social science) I am insulted. To put my cards on the table research into nuclear waste, funded by government. Not there to say hooray "nuclear waste is good for you". But if you do this with it, you get this result, and if you do that you get that result. And we'd meet FoE and Greenpeace, and discuss and argue. But respect each other rather than say, oh Government funded your research, you must love nuclear power, nah nah nah". Ironically many of us were more on the Greenpeace side, but that didn't affect our results. As we were adults and had integrity. Rocks - did you check out my link to the recent on line discussion/seminar? Here is is again - Aldred is one of those on the panel, you may even come out with a different view

Please inform the police, and if possible Southwark Trading Standards. The more people who report this the more likely that the authorities will take action.

I've heard of secret plans to pedestrian North Cross Road by the corrupt and incompetent council. They have no arrangements to consult with local residents and businesses and want to close the road one day a week to hold an outdoor market. Rumour has it that they want to attract a stall doing bike maintenance - clearly cyclists/the extremists of the London Cycle Campaign are running the show. This will take business away from established shops on Lordship Lane - Franklins expect shorter queues on Saturdays, the Cheese Shop are ordering less ciabattas and William Rose's Xmas queues may start a few days later. The closure of North Cross Road and loss of parking will increase congestion in surrounding streets. This closure is purely for the benefits of the rich in Dulwich Village, who I expect will have preferential parking for their chauffeurs. Local residents should resist, gather together with burning torches, be very angry and complain on social media. With apologies for not posting yesterday.

This is becoming like wac-a-mole. I'm desperately trying not to post. Most of the time there is little point as the dozen or so of you who are obsessed by the LTNs have closed minds. But then you post something ludicrous and it is difficult not to respond. So firstly it is nice when I see other like minded people talking about the need to reduce car use. But then it is like the bully in the playground when you are pleased that other kids are being picked on - your turn now RahRah and Otto to get grief(great respect to your views). I find it so difficult to debate with the hard core, as your views are: Southwark is corrupt Southwark is incompetent Southwark is in the pockets of the rich. And then you add it's the lycra clad extremists who are driving the agenda. And finally 'I'm going to put barriers in the way of why I wont reduce me car use'. If our starting point was how are we (realistically) going to reduce car use then we could have a proper conversation. I'll repeat my views - you have to add some inconvenience (and possibly additional cost). And then in time some of us will change our behaviour. Which roads you restrict access to is a decision for somebody else - TfL and the boroughs responsibility, I'm not particularly interested in how they work with you but if you have constructive proposals on which roads to restrict then I am sure that would be useful in the exercise. Or maybe draconian costs for those using our roads. Then Rocks you offer me another gem. Bringing gas boilers into the debate. Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter at the roadside are primarily from road transport, in particular (but progressively less so, due to the new generation of cleaner vehicles) from diesel cars. Gas boilers do not congregate to create pollution hotspots but gently waft their emissions well spaced out from each other. Heartblock, it makes me weep when you use these tragic circumstances to pursue an agenda - apologies if you are just stating information but I want to know what the solutions are. The outcome of the inquest will hopefully be even better information on the harm from poor air quality, and for those most vulnerable interventions to move them away from the hazard. What do you precisely want to do? Close the main roads through and around London? Move all the houses? Bury the main roads underground? If you want greater equality - an admirable thing - how do we achieve this without a political move to the left and ultimately a single party state?

Wonderful place and wonderful article. If you like this sort of thing head over East to God's Own Junkyard: http://www.godsownjunkyard.co.uk/

Penguin 68 - I've made the point that pollution from cars is generally reducing, and will fall further when the ULEZ comes in. But even at the legal limits people still die from poor air quality. I don't believe that this is an argument against LTNs as in time things will adjust, and some will drive less. As for CO2, record levels are leading to a climate emergency, affecting life as we know it on this earth. We are already seeing climate change, species will be wiped out, huge swathes of the world will be under water, climate change is already affecting the crops that we grow. So this will affect our health one way or another. But your point on human activities (population, but I would take if further) is a good one. But not sure how far Southwark should go on population control, and reducing many of the activities that are damaging our planet such as urbanisation, deforestation, mineral extraction, air travel etc etc. I think that they are best placed in reducing local carbon emissions through transport policy, housing and the like. But I expect that they are already doing things right in terms of sustainable procurement policies and aim of zero carbon.

Not sure why you have to use 'bonehead' apbremer, and Alice have a further go at Southwark (which begs the question why not move?). Using the pejorative makes it difficult to have an adult conversation. By coincidence have just come back from a walk in Syd Hill Woods, passing by the Grove and wondering why it had come to that. The garden is particularly impressive (overgrown) but like most I think the skate park is a great use of the place.

Selling Xmas trees in laybys November and December

5th May is a special day with across the globe ten national events, and nine 'observances' my fave being International Password Day. What a strange lot you are on this thread, if you want to slag off Southwark there are about eight threads already on the go. Happy to chat about the significance of this day in other regards, although I expect that is a bit esoteric. Kyrgyzstan Constitution day anyone? Anyway here you go: https://www.officeholidays.com/calendars/2022/05/05

An online seminar a few weeks ago featuring a number of well known officials and academics discussing decarbonisation of road transport. This is not just about banning the internal combustion engine, but reducing car use. One talks about tackling single occupancy journeys - I find the reduced average occupancy of cars (pre-Covid) pretty awful. The seminar is high level, and has not gone into detail about local measures. Rachel Aldred from Westminster University is quite impressive, give it a go when the warm weather ends. It's good to be informed on both sides of the debate.

There are many more species of moth than butterflies. Once went on a moth hunt in Sydenham Hill Woods, something you do yourselves - https://www.nhbs.com/1?slug=moth-traps&q=&fR[hide][0]=false&fR[live][0]=true&fR[shops.id][0]=1&fR[subsidiaries][0]=1&hFR[subjects_equipment.lvl1][0]=Entomology%20%3E%20Moth%20Traps But really best to post this on the nature thread. If you are talking about clothes moths (perhaps retitle your thread) its always been awful in SE London. Get yourself a sticky trap to monitor them, cedar wood balls in your chests and wardrobes and nuke them with sprays and moth bombs. And then repeat every few months (sat here in a lambswool jumped with a few holes). Don't leave woolens on the floor, wash regularly, move furniture as some carpets will be susceptible too. We have had other slightly larger brown moths that don't disintegrate when you crush them and are easier to catch, even though you don't need to. One obligingly flew into my mouth.

What on earth have you turned this thread into? A war between cyclists and drivers? Not really sure what is going on in your collective heads. Reducing emissions means reducing the number of cars. If this benefits active travel, well that is great. If there are local environmental groups representing motorists please do bring them into the discussion. This means measures that discourage driving. Not building dual carriageways. Or building a maglev train system. [PS cyclists are road users, and have the same rights when on the road as other users. On shared routes (all roads with vehicular access apart from motorways and the odd other road such as the Strand underpass) all legitimate modes/vehicles should be able to share road space.]