first mate

alex-b, I agree that they need to check your identity but feel that could be qualified in the message, it isn't. I am probably way too cynical.

Plus, in very bad weather people will be less likely to cycle (especially with those hills at either end of ED) so a decent public transport system, with buses where we need them, is key; without that cannot see how any of this is ever going to work, not with our local terrain.

Reading the privacy notice a number of thing raises question marks, notably that an emergency (pandemic)supersedes elements of that notice...quite what that means not sure but would like to be clearer. It seems that unless you opt out you are giving over rather more than just anonymised data, your name, address, DOB. Data is held in the cloud in secure servers in the EEC. Again, not sure of implications of that. If you use the 119 service to book or change jabs a phone advisory seems to suggest you give permission to whoever is running that service (NHS subcontractor) to "access your health records". No doubt all intentions here are as pure as the driven snow with only the interests of health and social research and public interest at the heart.

That seems a bit rich, given the centre replaced a 'community' hospital. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tessa Jowell supports a consortium of SE > London GP practices. If yours isn't one of them > you won't be asked there, I'm guessing.

I wonder if these instances of 'walking' and 'cycling' are included as evidence of LTN success? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car > park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least > they are walking the last 100 yards!!!

I do agree with this and wonder how much the Council is engaging with either sector? As a teacher our local Councillor is well placed to comment in more dtail.

Let's not try too hard to get this thread locked, though that does seem to be the intention of a certain forum 'cock'.

Thanks Fred. I also noted that in using the 119 service to book or change a vaccination you seem to give consent to the NHS subcontracted (private)company to access your health records. Does anyone know more about this?

This is a bit odd, almost every poster against LTNs seems to own a bike as well as a car and nearly all in favour seem to own a car as well as a bike. Go figure!

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.

I'd rather see spending on that than murals and the like, for sure.

Good luck but a great example of the sort of detail that is missed in the sledgehammer approach of LTNs, CPZ and seemingly deliberate, new camera traps.

Yes, but then many bike users say they still need to use a car? I don't think that is about laziness or not caring etc.. it is just the way the modern world has evolved over the last few centuries...in that things we may need or need to do, cannot always be done on just two wheels or by using public transport. On top of that, many will have made life choices- where they live, where and how they work, where they school their children, on the basis of being able to make some of those journeys by car. Expecting them to rip all that up overnight is unrealistic. Great if you are lucky enough to be able to but let's not punish those who cannot.

Sure, but you must admit something similar will be important if cycling is to replace a range of car journeys focussed on shopping, deliveries, taking family members from a to b, other everyday chores? I cannot see any of the activities Karim described as being really doable on ordinary bikes. There is no outright suggestion everyone should have or will need a cargo bike/ access to one, but examination of what you can realistically use to substitute for car journeys indicates this would be the case. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think anyone is suggesting that cargo > bikes are for everyone.

It does start to become a costly exercise/ "experiment". KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely if we all spend ?4000 on a cargo bike, plus > security, safety eqpt and storage costs, we're > going to have the Dimness Trope mocking us for our > extravagant wallets ?!

I think the crux of the issue is that most may try to do more bicycle journeys but will also need to keep a car. Doesn't feel like there is room for both in any number, cyclists that also keep a car need a parking space. It is also telling that in Amsterdam bikes are now being viewed as a bit of a menace in the same way cars used to be. I guess that is because there are many, many more bikes than there are here. Yes, we insure our bikes but you know as well as I that bike theft is on the up and insurance will rise accordingly, once companies see an opportunity to make money. I would find it too worrying to leave something that expensive on a regular basis and it would certainly not work for social outings (not that this is an issue in the current climate). It might seem like I am raising one obstacle after another but the devil is always in the detail. The main thrust of LTNs sounds a bit "this needs to be done, not quite sure how but we'll just punish the heck out of a proportion of the populace and make their lives hell until they roll over, and if we 'kill' em in the process, the end justifies the means.

northernmonkey, But can one of these cargo bikes easily fit into a hangar? Especially if there are other bikes in there? Seems like an awful lot of people are going to need cargo bikes in order for something like LTNs to have any chance of working, so the question of storage that is also secure is vital. I would be in a constant state of anxiety a bike like this would be stolen. Ground anchors, CCTV etc..do not offer the necessary level of security around a ?4,000 investment. If most people that have a bike also keep a car, the car being essential for some journeys that cannot be made in other ways, where do all the hangars go? This is the level of detail that needs to be considered and I do not think is. Sorry, so many people have enough to deal with right now, simply trying to earn a living, make ends meet and juggle family commitments without forcing further layers of stress on top. I'd also be more convinced if those leading the 'charge' on LTNs all gave up their cars. But to a man or woman most have admitted they still own, use and keep one. "Your points on bike storage are really important First Mate. I can't describe how disappointing I find the council's new 'consultation' on where bike hangers are needed, it feels like yet another delaying tactic. There are 1000s of people on waiting lists, any new hanger fills up immediately, so its clear that the demand is huge and they should be on every street (with those with more flats or houses with no front gardens prioritised".

northernmonkey, I understand and apologies to Karim if put in an awkward position. I also appreciate the great photos. Frankly, I do not see that unless you have a side passage or a large house and hallway, this would be an easy bike to store and manoeuvre? The other issue is safety outside when left? I'd not want to leave a bike like this for any length of time and that does raise question marks as to how practical it really is? I also note Karim is holding onto his car. It seems like this option works for those with deep pockets, plenty of space at home and, I guess, a limited need to travel much or far to make a living, get children schooled, care for vulnerable relatives...the list goes on. I am open to this but really not convinced. For many this would have to be a complete substitute for a car, not an add on.

LTNBooHoo. Sometimes less is more. Karim, where and how do you store your bike? Apologies if you answered this before, I did not see it. The cargo bike looks too big for a hangar, too valuable to be left outside and too big to be left in the hall of average terrace home. This bike looks like TERN GSD. These are reported as retailing at around ?4000, so storage is important.

Nigello, good points and I wonder if you saw the recent Guardian article indicating a pedestrian upsurge against cycling in the city. It seems as though there, at least, cyclists are starting to be treated in similar fashion to car users here. Again, I think there are very few if any current forum users that do not support reduction of car use and are unlikely to be petrol heads etc.. Those against current implementation of LTNs are signalling that the attendant issues are more complex than is being acknowledged and greater debate/ scrutiny required.

Jooles, that's great and totally support what you are doing. I am holding onto my car because I genuinely need to use it at times. In those instances, car hire/ public transport is not a viable option. Not all the journeys I have to make are feasible by bicycle, the ones that are I do. I suspect this is the reality for many others. It is complex. The current 'solutions' are overly simplistic and actually creating greater problems for some.

It helps to have someone who knows what they are talking about. Thanks for sharing Heartblock. Does there seem to be resistance to replacing planters with cameras, or perhaps S'wark plan to use money made from cameras in DV to fund them elsewhere? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FOI ab29. If you are interested a simple google > will be able to produce all the requests. I also > have contacts in LAS through my profession, but > not able to post anything which is not in the > public domain. But this is, as an FOI for the > scrutiny committee Emergency Services ? Southwark > Experimental Transport Measures > 16/07/2020 > > London Ambulance Service ? London-wide these > measures are happening and > they are not joined up. Our fleet is very fluid > and not from a fixed location. The > nearest ambulance to the emergency wil be called > up to attend. Planters are not > showing up on Satnavs. > The measures are creating delays responding to > calls. Not against principles of > scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower > response times. ANPR cameras > are the best measures and these work for us. Width > restrictions are also a problem. > Ambulances are more likely to use neighbouring > roads. > Metropolitan Police ? Pan-London units wil have > similar issues with SatNavs. > London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road) ? We have a > 6-8 minute attendance time. > Must be mindful of width restrictions. Fire > brigade can also come from further afield > and these measures can have a big impact. We are > heavily under the microscope > due to previous issues. > Metropolitan Police ? We have had to add these > measures in to our risk register. > > If you read through all the DATIX then there are > delays due to physical barriers, one being a > paediatric cardiac arrest. > > I suppose it is upsetting for me, as someone who > used to be part of the on call primary PCI team to > imagine the frustration paramedics and first > responders feel when delayed. > > Very much in favour of reducing car use and > encouraging active travel, but doubt LTNs achieve > either. Seems to causing chaos for many and > increased house prices for the few.

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.

Well, so far, this has not been contradicted, so I guess we can conclude it is true. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, is it true as reported, that in Sept 2020 the > London Ambulance Service reported delays to life > threatening emergencies and asked for Southwark > Council to remove the hard closures in Calton, > Derwent and Melbourne? Citing traffic jams on > Grove, EDG and Croxted and no alternative routes.

Ditto! alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James don?t take my labour vote as a sign you are > on the right track. The current LTNs reward > privilege - the wealthy get healthier. The result > of this consultation will determine whether a > lifetime of labour voting will change. I cannot be > alone.