henryb

> There is no such thing as road tax; it was > abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for from general > taxation which cyclists are just as subject to as > every other citizen. I think a good thing to encourage cycling would be an information campaign targeted at drivers explaining that cyclists have the right to use the road - the whole lane if they want to, that if a they want to overtake a cyclist they should give plenty of room ? i.e. if the cyclist can reach out and touch the car it is not enough; and not to stop in the ASL zones. Although things are improving there is still a lot very aggressive driving out there and it is off putting for new cyclists. I think some of that comes from a widespread view that roads are for cars and cyclist should not be there and are in the way.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The net effect is a transfer of cash from one tax > payer to another; without the tax break the money > would still be in the public pot. Same > difference, in this instance. Yes possibly but still it is not dishing it out - it is not taking it in the first place - which is conceptually different - especially to the Tory party. Tax breaks ? good, Welfare Payments - bad.

Yes those shared space schemes generally come with a 20 limit. Any faster and the different road user can't interact naturally and safely via eye contact. Yep remove all the bumps, signs and clutter and have a universal 20 limit. Perfect.

It is not handing out public money. It taking less of people own money off them.

Exactly - rather come up with a complex and expensive scheme to give different tax breaks on childcare to different people. Why not just provide more state childcare for everyone?

> Is there a visual plan/diagram of what the plans? http://www.steveprentice.net/tube/TfLSillyMaps/southlondontube.jpg How about this one?

From the article it sounds like they wont do any of the three on the wiki page about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell (one of which would include a useful stop at Peckham Rye Park) but rather go from Camberwell to Peckham then go overground along the line to Nunhead and Brockley. Kinda makes more sense financially than digging a hole from Peckham to Honor Oak Park

Which other ones are?

20mph zones are considerably more pleasant places for pedestrians - so more footfall. Conversely making cars the priority in urban planning destroys retail areas - just look at Elephant and Castle.

TLF aren't that hostile to 20 zones. Their own reseach shows they reduce fatal and serious casualties by half. There might be one at Elephant and Castle which is an A road.

Not quite sure what everyone is getting so upset about - it is only some minor road works for a few weeks. The lights were temporary, there was a consultation, some people wanted them removed - more people wanted to make them permanent - so they they are being made permanent - with some improvements for pedestrians. Sounds reasonable to me.

A more formal crossing and more traffic calming measures are needed before more accidents occur. It should be a 20mph limit as it goes past a school. People should be able to walk their kids to school in safety.

Yeah I know quality post.

> This whole madcap > scheme is entirely down to a tiny minority who > just happen to live nearby and entertain some > trumped-up delusion that death-free access to > schools, shops and parks is some sort of > entitlement rather than a self-indulgent luxury. Arf - yeah christ, how selfish of them? I have to confess to putting the Zebra option down but I then I think forgot to post it - so it is all my fault. The lights aren't so bad - if they weren't there you would only get stuck for longer at the next set.

Even if Britian does leave the EU I would imagine it would still stay in the EEA or EFTA like Norway - so rights of residence should not be affected. Nothing is 100% certain though.

I think people are after a direct link. Failing the 63 extension I think a new regular route like Bic Basher suggested would be fantastic especially if continued on Denmark Hill and the Hospital. Thinking about it - would probably negate most of my reasons for local car journeys. I think a route linking up 3 train stations, HOP, Lordship Lane, Peckham Rye Park, King?s Hospital and not to mention a few schools would be used a lot. It would reduce congestion, commute parking and increase footfall on Lordship Lane and in HOP. The more I think about it the better it gets.

Not enough middle class snobs and thier obnoxious children frequenting it presumably.

Yeah a bit of a squeeze but I've always been able to get on.

Great post Katrusja - fully in agreement.

Might as well include Denmark Hill Station in that route.

Regarding the congestion/noise - that road (on both sides of the hill) has easily over 2000 vehicles and an hour in peak times including many HGVs and 2 existing bus routes. An extra 10 busses an hour isn?t going make a significant difference to congestion or noise. One of the reasons the traffic is so heavy is because of the poor public transport links. Connecting the 63 to the Overground at Honor Oak Park would improve this and will help reduce congestion. The corner doesn?t look so bad to me and I?ve seen out of service double deckers go that way. But it is up to TFL to decide whether it is safe or not. Yes the road is narrower than lower down but it is not as narrow as other parts of the 63 route. Plus it already has busses running on it - a double decker isn?t any wider the singe decker bus. The buses could still use the existing stand so no new stand needs to be built at Brockley Rise And yes there are other routes and you can walk but they would take longer and walking that hill is difficult for some people. If we want to encourage people out of their cars then improving the public transport network is the best way to do this. Obviously a serious cost/benefit analysis needs to be done and the extension needs to be done in way so the rest of the service is not affected. But I am all for it.

> Does no-one have a view to my point regarding the > impact on travel times for those who have to use > vehicles for long jorneys across London. Yes it is fair point and a concern. I would hate for anyone?s commute time to go up. Commute times bad enough as they are for most people. But as I understand it, if this going be implemented as it has in other places it would just mean a default 20 on residential roads, arterial/trunk/red routes wouldn?t be included. Also when driving on residential roads you spend a lot of time under the max speed because of the junctions, crossings so on plus a lot are 20 already. The limiting factor is for car journeys in London is congestion rather than max speed. That is why cycling is faster than driving in London. Slower max speeds improves flow and reduces bottlenecks, it also encourages cycling and walking all of which reduce congestion. Once you take all that in account it will hardly make any difference to journey times.

"Forcing reduced speed increases fuel consumption and therefore pollution". That is not true. In built up areas the of effect constant acceleration and deceleration reduces the optimal efficient speed as 20 mph limit results in more steady driving. When it was done in Germany it was shown to improve fuel economy by 12% But you are right at constant speed the optimal is a lot higher and on motorways we should reduce the max speed to 55 mph because of that. "Coops the majority of people on the roads are in vehicles...." Well if you include the pavement then I would say the most are pedestrians. But regardless, the speed of vehicles on the roads effects everyone - so everyone gets a say. This is a democracy and ultimately these things get decided by elected officials not by who pays the most or drives on the roads the most.

"My point is faults are among all types but we have a tendency to stereotype/tar all with same brush based on our own experiences." That is true but it paints a distorted picture where the risk actually lies. Of accidents involving a bike and another road user only 2% are caused by a cyclist jumping a red light or stop sign. In accidents involving a bicycle and a motor vehicle 60%-75% are solely the responsibility of the driver. In 2009 DfT figures show that 426 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles; none were killed by cyclists. Of course 2 wrongs don?t make a right but as a society we should focus on stopping the behaviour that causes the biggest risk of death and serious injury to other first. The biggest risk to pedestrians is bad driving. The biggest risk to cyclists is bad driving The biggest risk to car drivers is bad driving.

There are actually 292 languages, belonging to of 9 different language families, spoken in China. Mandarin is a group of languages. Beijing Dialect Mandarin or Pekingese is is the bases of what is sometimes called Standard Chinese.