first mate

Still no response from councillors?

There are two issues at play here. The first is perceptions about whether LTNs have achieved stated aims- the overwhelming view is no, they haven't. The second is about the real purpose of council consultation- to genuinely listen and represent local residents or, instead, a box ticking tool to window-dress and facilitate councillor agendas?

It is also a dilemma if you are cycling and need navigation or turn by turn directions. I am nervous about having my phone on a mount and have to keep it in my jacket so it is hidden but it is not ideal. As the OP said many people use their phones to check directions etc, even when walking.

Otto, no I am not car-centric, I am simply aware that desired change can take longer than some wish. I am a realist. Shoehorning in changes that make life much more difficult for a lot of people is not just unhelpful; it is also divisive. I have already stated I use a bike as often as I can but I also have to have a car, there is no way I could cope without it. I am not alone in this. It is a reality, not a stance or a belief. Nor am I lazy or selfish or unaware or uncaring about the environment. In reality, unless you are lucky enough to have a garage cars can only be stored on the street. Bikes can be stored inside premises or in gardens. I do agree, if households only use bikes and do not own a car then it is fair they have a hangar, and use up a parking space, but so many own a bicycle as well as a car and will need to have both for the forseeable future.

For those in flats it is fair to have a cycle hangar but many local residents live in a house with access to a garden. For them a hangar is not a need necessarily, it is extra storage that is convenient. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good idea re: re-letting the spaces. > > 1) Electric bikes are less expensive than a car. > 2) Our house has four and sometimes five cyclists > -- the hangar space is a godsend (none of us have > a car). > 3) Yes - many people who live in flats are unable > to take bikes inside - a couple of my friends have > this problem. > > Cycling is not going to be for everyone, but, for > those who chose to do so, the roads should be > available for parking - most especially for people > who live in flats and those that do not own a car. > Our house has four people that could own cars and > could take up four car spaces, but, a cycle hangar > can serve six people in one car space!

Sally, I understand people in flats might need hangars but on my street alone people with large homes, with adequate front and back gardens are wanting these. It is simply convenient street storage, not a need, for most of them. No doubt cycling fanatics also wish to make a point about cars taking up space but overall it is not helpful. Unless there is really massive social change in terms of how and where people live, work and play, people are going to need cars for a long time to come. The hope is that more people cycle when possible. I believe many are and do not hold with the notion that for the most part people are popping out in their cars for a quick latte on the lane. I believe you were advocating that people consider moving unless they can cycle to work, but c'mon, how realistic is that? Change takes time. People have to work and earn a living...especially now. If you are really in a position where you can cycle, walk or use public transport for your every aspect of your life then consider yourself extremely lucky or privileged.

The problem is this Council is utterly paternalistic, they think they are right and so are happy to throw out any remnant of democratic process. They need to be removed and we need incumbents who are prepared to properly engage with residents and represent them, instead of obstinate imposition.

But they are expensive. Who'd want to keep an expensive e-bike in a hangar where it can get broken in to and stolen? Lugging one of those in and out the house would be too much. Too heavy to lug around tubes or trains. Too expensive to leave tethered somewhere if you want to go shopping- I'd be worried it would be stolen. Great if you have a large house with a side entrance to your garden and you have time to tootle around and don't need to leave it anywhere but for the majority who need to work, shop ferry kids around etc.. No, I am far from convinced. I don't think winter is that severe in terms of cold but rain is the deal breaker, it also makes cycling less safe, as do shorter, darker days because roads are in such poor shape, with potholes. There are some flatter routes but many, many hills everywhere. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those hills - electric bikes are amazing. > There are also routes around them going north that > are flat. And winter is pretty mild here.

I already have one and use it a lot. I keep mine on my premises, no need to impose a hangar onto the street, although it would be more convenient, I grant you. I also need to use a car; it is essential for certain journeys. My point is if most households, many with children, wish to keep bikes for all the family in a cycle hangar on the street we'll be needing an awful lot of hangars. In reality, I don't think cycling as the main form of transport will ever take off, not in the way some hope. We have very steep hills either end of Dulwich and winter weather will see off all but the most dedicated.

Of course, given the choice of carrying my bike through the house or having a cycle hangar outside to put it in, the latter is definitely much better for me. I can store my bike within my home/ garden, but heck if I can get a cycle hangar place for me and the kids, why not. It saves me mess and clutter. I guess if every member of the family has a bike that roughly means there'll need to be a cycle hangar every three houses on each side of the street?

Indeed, another deplorable attempt to shutdown the thread. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Really ...people complained about this post > > inciting violence? Good grief. > > > > Dear I love my LTN that has made my house worth > > more and my nice road traffic free people. > > > > I do understand that people living on ED Grove, > > Croxted, LL in a gardenless flat, who depend on > > public transport to keep their job, who are > upset > > because their road that was busy, but is now > full > > of idling traffic are irritating when they > remind > > you that your ability to buy a nicer house in a > > nicer street, which is now even nicer, comes at > > the cost to others...I do understand that deep > > down you may feel a tingle of shame that > despite > > the EqIA from Southwark, showing how disabled, > > elderly people feel trapped, disenfranchised > and > > negatively impacted that the LTNs and the > square > > of shame remain. > > > > It isn?t language I would necessarily use, but > do > > let people take a moment of true despair that > the > > consultation was a sham and their lives have > been > > made a little more s**t. > > > > So no need to make faux complaints of > ?disgusted > > of Calton? or ?shocked of Melbourne? or > ?terrified > > of Elsie? when someone uses the word ?battle? > or > > ?war?. > > > > Honestly.... > > A brilliant, brilliant post.

It is infuriating and extremely divisive. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And even with all the cajoling the pro-LTN did to > get the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to > have their say in tbe review the "remove them" > share was still 55% of the overall total inputs > received. They couldn't even manipulate that part > of the review. > > Which is why the council are grasping at the > "these two roads want them" nonsense. It's all > they have, everything else gives them a resounding > no. The longer the publication went on was > reflective of how much work they were doing to try > and find a reason to keep them.

I'd say it is only independents we'd want. James Barber of LibDems has been quiet as a mouse on all this but in his time was pro CPZ and very entwined with cycling lobbies. Could not vote for a Tory, so we have to pray we get some decent independent candidates. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as > to whether independent candidates of any flavour > are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially > vote for a local independent or local party, in > the hope they might be - well, representative in > some sense.

The 'let each road decide' approach is how the council managed to get CPZ started. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From reading the summary of the survey, they are > spinning the rationale of keeping 'the square > because the residents of the two roads directly > connected to it want to retain it despite the > overall majority of responses asking for it to be > removed > > Could just be my reading of the report but seems > the richer residents want quieter streets. > > Did the traders from East Dulwich and the village > have their views represented in the documents ? > There were, I believe, meetings and a written > response but I couldn't see any feedback in the > documents produced by the council. > > I guess the next steps are for residents and > businesses to formally object to the proposals

I cannot understand the demand for cycle hangars by those who have a front or back garden. Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The street I live in has a Whatsapp chat group > with both streets perpendicular to ours, who both > want cycle hangars, but none are prepared to have > them in front of their own home because they also > own a car, and think they look ugly, but are > completely prepared for others to have the > burden. > > We recently had a letter proposing 2 cycle hangars > on our street. It is a small street with around 25 > houses. Most, if not all, of us who own a bike > already have a shed in our front garden, and > parking is already tight due to overflow from > other streets. So obviously, we have all written > with our objections.

Tsk, HP, you'll get hauled into master/mistress Malumbu's study for rule-breaking if you are not careful and you know he/she is in charge😉

This is the way our councillors seem to prefer to communicate- https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures

Legal, did you mean to post a link? legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This book review by Prof Alfred back in 2008 is an > interesting read and perhaps gives some insight > into the Marxist perspective on car dominance (a > partial driver of some current policy?) I?ll leave > people to form their own views.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I personally don?t care whether a hundred thousand > cyclists turned up all living in SE22 (or all > living in Kent) for the flotilla, it?s quite > frankly irrelevant as it is not in any way > representative of the real world day to day > normality of road use in the area. > > The fact is most active travel is made on foot. > And in my view any measures that are put in that > cause greater levels of pollution and/or > congestion jeopardise the health and safety of all > those making those active journeys. > > I don?t believe there is any validity in the > notion that removing LTNs is wrong because it > would be putting more cars on side streets and so > anyone pushing for that must ultimately have the > goal of more cars on side streets. > UNLESS you also accept that the very > implementation of the LTNs in the first place put > more cars on side streets (LL, EDG etc are hardly > bigger than the ?side streets? that have been > filtered - they?re still residential roads after > all). > > The scheme is a failure, completely unfair and > should be replaced with something else entirely > (with proper consultation with all residents). Cue > the ?ah so you just want to go back to loads more > cars on the road - you?d rather just do nothing..? > brigade. No, of course not. But I don?t believe > that the ideology of cyclists and the > environmentally conscious should somehow trump the > rights to clean air of a selection of unfortunate > residents. If you cannot give clean air and quiet > streets to everyone, then your scheme needs work. > If you are giving wealthy residents clean air and > quiet streets at the expense of a selection of > (arguably less wealthy) residents then your scheme > is not fit for purpose. There is simply no > acceptable excuse for forcing these measures on > people. > > Until a fair solution can be found, air pollution > (as horrific as it may be) should be shared > equally by all residents as it is all of our > burden to bear (not just an unfortunate > selection). Well said.

Lots of young, healthy people out enjoying a summery ride over the holiday season...no biggie really. Those of us who can will all enjoy a bicycle jaunt on a gorgeous day. So what?

Or having seen there was a fairly large group of demonstrators at the junction and seeing that the situation might be hazardous, choose to avoid? It does seem fairly simple. It also seems to be the case that you are choosing to make a very big deal out of your own experience and in a post above are listing further grievances seemingly in an attempt to shore up your position as the apparent 'victim' in all this. Meantime, deflecting attention from the reasons the protestors felt compelled to go out in such numbers in the first place. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing > to > > do if it was as dangerous as you suggest. > > I simply said it was dangerous. Which if you look > at the link you posted yourself and think about > having to get off your bike and then help two > young kids off theirs whilst standing in the > middle of the road, with traffic on either side - > I think you'd have to agree it is. Certainly more > dangerous than someone moving their bag.

DC, The children's safety in regard to this one event is moot, even a bit of a straw man. As others have said, you can see an event well ahead, you assess and take a decision whether to proceed on bicycle or not. If you feel your children are in danger you avoid. On the other hand, you seem to be entirely dismissive of the issues raised by LTNs for the elderly and disabled. You have not expressed any concern in that regard.

Well I have only said it once and not aware of anyone other than you repeating it so doubt it is a catch phrase...yet. You have used the 't' word not me. Again, posters that are so outraged at alleged 'danger' to a cyclist and their children seem to have zero empathy with the many elderly and disabled protestors. Why is that? hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > ------------------------------- > > Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the > new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'? > HP

RRR, so in a nutshell the protestors are 'idiots' and 'selfish'. You cannot find any reason to consider they too may have a point. BTW, I did not say your children were endangered, please don't put words into my mouth, you suggested they were placed in danger by the actions of the protestors; so if that was the case why did you not avoid what you viewed as a dangerous situation? Why continue forward. I really don't think many posters are convinced by what you are saying. Why not just give up on this particular tactic, it is not working. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to > turn > > up on bicycles with your children. Any danger > to > > your children could have been avoided. You > would > > have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to > > avoid that route but protests often do cause > > inconvenience. > > > > Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype > > and not at all convincing. > > I didn't even know there was a protest. > > You could just say, I agree with their aims, but > yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people > trying to turn off the main road into the square. > > But you chose to say I'm endangering my children, > by being unfortunate enough to run into some > selfish people blocking the turn off the main > road. > > Sure.

Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience, no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to continue moving forward on their bicycles into 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to children is quite obviously a tactical confection. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? Was > the protest advertised in advance?