first mate

I'd go with the expert opinion at the LA panel which seemed balanced and reasonable. In the part I listened to, traffic and parking was mentioned (especially couriers) but no more emphasised than cycle lanes, public utilities- 'emergency' works (especially Thames Water), road design interventions like box junctions (viewed by the bus driver rep as primarily about money-making). Strangely, no mention of car length or size. This is where Earl started to try to get the kind if answer he wanted. When that failed, he changed Rocket's wording, misattributed it to me and then told me I was wrong to say that! Wow! Are you okay? Go back and read. That's certainly not how I read it.

Just for complete accuracy, here is the quote by Rockets. I also see that Earl rather dishonestly changed the words, removing "one of the" to a stronger "the" which rather changes emphasis and therefore meaning. So Earl has a number of times not only stated I have said something I have not but meddled with the quote to better serve his purpose. @Earl AelfheahDid you respond?

Looking back I found you had said this. And you claim to want good faith debate? Tut, tut. In fact, I see you are up to your usual slice and dice tricks and lifted a comment you allege was made by me that was actually part of an earlier paragraph I had quoted by Rockets. So you keep stating I have said something I haven't. Sorry, I must have missed your answer.

What are you actually saying here Earl?You seem to be trying to find a way to put words into my mouth. Given your newly found expertise on what the panel said, do you agree with them that cycle lanes are a factor in slower buses?

@Earl Aelfheah said "It was suggested that bicycles were the primary cause of carriageway pressure. They are not". Where was this stated? Over this thread what I have taken away is that bicycles and, to be more precise, cycle lanes, are ONE of the causes of carriageway pressure. Can you say that is categorically untrue? Earl you backed this up by referring to an LA session where you said this was discussed. I asked a number of times for a link to that session; do you have it or at least a transcript or time and date of the session?

The frequency of fireworks seems to be increasing. If revellers selected the low noise variety that would help, but the trend seems to be the louder the better. I do not think sensitivity to stimuli is the same as timidity. Unexpected, extremely loud bangs and unusual noises will startle most of us. Humans, unlike other animals, have the luxury of knowing what fireworks are and what the noise represents. Some animals do learn to cope but many do not. It could be their hearing is not as sensitive. We should not forget that many animals, including cats and dogs have hearing that is much more developed than ours.

Again, it is the complete random nature of it all; for anyone with a pet scared of firework noise this must be a nightmare.

Just had round two!

And the special occasion for tonight's noise extravaganza is? Does anyone know? Is that it or can we expect more?

@Earl Aelfheah said: "You don’t have to outsource your thinking to someone else." Of course you are entitled to your views, but I don't view agreeing with a panel of experts as 'outsourcing my thinking'. Unless you can tell us that you have a greater level of expertise and knowledge on factors affecting slowing bus speeds in London, I am more inclined to take on board their opinions than yours. However, if you feel you have greater expertise then do tell us? I am genuinely interested to hear the session you cited where car length and size is considered a major factor in current congestion issues. Please share.

This is your conclusion, not that of the LA session. I got the impression from that session that vehicles numbers had plateaued if not dropped but multiple journeys by delivery drivers were possibly an issue. Changes to road structure (cycle lanes and box junctions) were mentioned as factors, but not car size or length- can you link to the LA session where the latter was discussed? As stated before, the Council's CPZ plans have made a point of ring fencing (possibly increasing) parking on LL to facilitate shoppers visiting in cars. They felt it was necessary to balance the needs of car-using shoppers against those of residents and to protect businesses. At the time the ED CPZ was mooted I raised the issue of bus flow but posters who generally support these sort of interventions seemed unconcerned (perhaps playing the long game).

I think I have made clear, as indicated in the LA session, it is multifactorial. Car length and size was not mentioned as a factor but cycle lanes were. Can you link to the other discussion you refer to?

Actually, I think I may have read more meaning than intended into the initial post about this. I don't think Ellie Reeves was there to specifically address Gala, but it was suggested that since she was so close by the event venue it would be a good time to raise the subject with her. Someone please correct me if that is wrong.

But I thought it was a cyclist who drew attention to issues with the slippery and 'dangerous' surface at the newly landscaped Dulwich Square?

I'd go with the expert opinion at the LA panel which seemed balanced and reasonable. In the part I listened to, traffic and parking was mentioned (especially couriers) but no more emphasised than cycle lanes, public utilities- 'emergency' works (especially Thames Water), road design interventions like box junctions (viewed by the bus driver rep as primarily about money-making). Strangely, no mention of car length or size.

Rockets said: "Well @Earl Aelfheah I am no expert, and I am sure you're not too, but the assembled panel of experts for the London Assembly meeting to address declining bus speeds would not agree with you. They all agreed that carriageway pressure is one of the major contributing factors (along with roadworks). One specifically cited cycle lanes, LTNs, 20mph limits and public realm as key factors affecting bus speeds. Interestingly later in the discussion they talk about growing evidence that routes with interventions are some of the worst performing." I second this; I did not listen to the whole of the session, but from what I gathered length of cars was not mentioned at all or considered as a contributing factor in slower bus speeds. The problem with removing parking spaces on LL is that it flies in the face of Southwark Council's carefully devised CPZ plans, where it has said it will protect local businesses who fear losing out on shoppers in cars trade by ensuring paid for parking slots on LL and adjacent residential streets. This was all rationalised as balancing the needs of shoppers in cars with those of residents requiring parking space. When the CPZ plan first came out I immediately pointed out potential issues with buses and many of you were silent on the subject.

Surely both driver and cyclist might be prosecuted? The cyclist at night without lights on would be cycling illegally.

But you did not qualify not proceeding/stopping with an 'if necessary' and that is what I am quibbling about. Your version sounded like if momentarily dazzled by lights you should stop/not proceed.

Yes, but slowing down isn't. Come on Earl, you made it sound like if you are momentarily dazzled you should not proceed.

Yup, just not addressing the points you made; so, so obvious. Still nothing from DulvilleRes. If you make attacks and claims like that, at least have the decency to provide the 'proof'. You may have a point- perhaps they exist only in the imaginations of some. Not saying all cycle lanes are not busy, just some.

'Slowing down and stopping if necessary' is reasonable. Earl seemed to suggest you should not proceed at all, which reads like stopping immediately.

@Earl AelfheahAt that time, the mayor suggested that in such a scenario cycling could increase 10-fold and walking five-fold post-lockdown. It is a phrasing that infers that if certain things were changed there would be a ten-fold increase. The motive here is to persuade those changes are worth making to get 'that result'. Anyhow, my issue here is that DulvilleRes said Rockets had been "proven wrong"...again and called him a propagandist. I see no conclusive evidence to support that claim at all. In fact, I would argue that is the kind of hyperbole and character assassination that reads far more like propaganda.

@exdulwicher Thanks for the stats lesson. But, DulvilleRes stated that Rockets had been proved wrong, quoted below. Please can DulvilleRes detail specifically where on this thread's issue Rocket's has been "proved wrong"? We are talking here about "proof" not just views or interpretations of data.

If you are momentarily dazzled by oncoming headlights, or for that matter flashing bicycle lights, you should just stop dead? Is that what you mean?

It has gone very quiet. Looking forward to @DulvilleRes response.. Malumbu told us that he performs a community service by driving around checking on various aspects of road design to ensure they are working properly. It will be most entertaining to see him do this on a pogo stick. Let us know when he starts.