first mate

Sounds familiar! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

Great point worldwiser.

"There isn't a simple solution to this which doesn't involve a significant curtailment of the personal freedom to jump in a car and drive the route we want, EVs aren't the whole answer either as will do nothing for road safety or inactivity nor will they encourage active travel without some reduction in the number of vehicles on the road." The impression is that the bulk of the traffic build-up at key times is the result of multiple 'school runs' so this is probably the area that should be examined a lot more closely. Are there ways schools, private schools included, can be encouraged to stop parents driving their children to school? Could private schools be made to facilitate and fund some sort of london-wide chaperone service, whereby children have to use public transport but for safety reasons they are accompanied. Could Southwark Cyclists find bike train volunteers to help children living closer get to and from school on bicycles? Given so many streets are now free of traffic I am interested to know how much of a cycling uptake there has been? Has the bad weather put a lot of people off and, if so, won't this continue to be a factor, especially in winter?

Once more, and you seem resistant to this malumbu, it needs to be re-opened to buses!

Very, very sad to see the shop go and very much hope nor forced out by current economic climate. Will the next incumbent have a similar approach to produce etc, does anyone know?

No, did not think you were suggesting that. It was more a comment on what may or may not be council rules/guidance re dogs barking before 9am and after 9pm, that was all. I think you have every reason to feel annoyed and hope you can sort things out with your neighbours. I also feel sorry for the dog.

I think it would be difficult and pretty unrealistic to completely stop dogs barking before 9am or after 9pm. Dogs bark. It is natural. The only remedy to ensure complete absence of dog barks outside those times would be to ban all dogs. That said, allowing any dog to bark for more than a few minutes at a time is not great. Leaving the dog out to bark for hours on end is outrageous.

What this means is that all the borough and perhaps even london-wide, pro cycling groups and various clean air, anti- pollution and climate change groups will be called upon to respond in force, including their children. Perhaps even babies can have a proxy voice. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Amazing twist on the upcoming consultation (see > the attached document) > > No minimum age for responding to the consultation > and stakeholders both inside and outside of the > Dulwich area scheme are able to respond. > > The cynic in me wonders if, for example, let's say > a school teacher asks his pupils who are outside > of the area to write a response to the scheme as > part of their homework. > > I also have to question how easy it will be to > verify that a person under 18 actually exists, as > they aren't in the electoral register and we've > all heard stories of families incorrectly claiming > things like universal credit for non existent > children. > > Of course I'm not saying anyone would deliberately > manipulate responses but it is open to abuse if > someone was so inclined.

Good grief, you used to actually drive to Oxford Street to shop? I thought that was virtually impossible. Nice bike. How much with all the attachments. What sort of locks do you use and where do you keep it at home?

Where and why do you keep a car at all if you don't use it? LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get out of your cars. > > My husband has a cracked rib. He just left the > house to pick up a battery on his bike. He is > 71. ( the car battery is dead because we never > use it)

We've had others suggesting unless you can cycle to and from work and live your life on bicycles, you should really consider moving. It is this sort of tone deaf approach, riddled with assumptions about needless, unnecessary journeys and innate car user laziness, that is so offensive and blocks constructive discussion. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly John, one LTN at any cost person, told me > it?s my fault for buying a flat on ED Grove and > calling me basically stupid to complain about the > additional traffic. ?You should have bought a > house on a different road 30 yrs ago?. > Unfortunately as a poor junior health professional > coming out of a toxic relationship I could only > afford this flat, as my life became better I > invested and improved my flat and came to love ED > Grove, up until now. Southwark should be reducing > pollution on already bust rds, not increasing > pollution. It?s just gated communities for the > most privileged and we all know it.

Ah, so you don't cycle everywhere then?😉

One of my greatest fears when cycling is actually other cyclists. I've had way more near misses with cyclists than cars. How would you address that? In terms of cycle lanes, slower cyclists can frustrate those on a speed mission. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reduce on-street parking to remove pinch points / > dedicated Bus lanes to prevent cars obstructing > buses and cause delays. Protected cycle lanes (ie > EDG) on main roads and more infrastructure to > enable safe active travel (fear is one of the main > reasons many people who could cycle don't). ULEZ. > Road-pricing. Higher tax on SUVs. Increase fuel > duty. Improve public transport where possible - > which takes time and money. > > Do more not less.

@Raeburn But meantime, you feel morally justified in imposing even higher levels of pollution on some sections of the community?

Slippery answer and does you no favours at all. Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what > you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding > it, just didn't understand what you wanted. > > ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally > used those routes over the years, but would > actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and > unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over > the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't > say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always > seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when > it is clear at night - so has been unattractive > for years. would prefer to take the residential > streets and avoid where I could between Goose > Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is > up/down/same, honest answer. > > I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution > has been bad for years, and that average vehicle > size is notably bigger. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic > on > > these roads has increased massively since the > > closures went in as a direct consequence of > them? > > Simple question??do you think that is > acceptable > > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal > to > > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > > yes?;-)

On the other hand, prednisolone, dexamethasone or similar may reduce the severity of symptoms, if you are unlucky enough to contract Covid. If true, that is only of limited comfort I know.

Add to that that some of the most vociferous LTN and cycling supporters on here clearly have it both ways as they admit to owning and driving a car when they need to. Thus they have built a rationale that justifies their own need but that dismisses and negates that of others. It is breathtakingly arrogant and paternalistic.

Well, well, well and are we surprised. You'll have to find a clever workaround. I think the council do a lot of 'managing' of information by these accidentally on purpose technology 'errors'. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a similar note, the Council seem to have > unilaterally disabled the "update" service on > their Council and Democracy website. I've > suddenly stopped receiving updates, and when I try > to resubscribe I get an error message with the > ominous word "Forbidden". Ironic. > > > dulwichfolk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As with all these things most that are affected > > don?t have time to search out all the websites > > they should be sticking pins into. > > > > The council seem to be happy with that and only > > wish to hear from one demographic whatever they > > may say about inclusion etc....

Okay, but not how it came over, as I suspect you well know;

Eh, just because ab29 does not trust 'journalism' in one newspaper does not automatically mean he completely trusts it in another. Tsk, such a black and white view, laden with assumptions. In my view, you'd be a fool to completely trust reporting from any media outlet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/07/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than-traffic Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in Southwark?

Mr chicken needs his wings clipped😉

The cloth-eared council.

Correction, some people's and some children's health. For the rest it seems a sector are intensely relaxed about writing of the health and stress levels of a swathe of other sections of the community because, you see, the end justifies the means. Think not of your children now but in twenty years time and, anyway, many of the less mobile, the elderly, will by then be dead. Fanaticism and ruthless imposition make happy bedfellows.

I'm with you P68, it really is comparing apples and pears. The point about hills is also very important. The standard riposte is to get an e-bike. Again, with bike crime on the rise and the fact that e-bikes and their batteries are very heavy, I am not convinced these are the marvellous solution they are cracked up to be, at least not for elderly or less mobile. In Copenhagen, people can leave bikes out without it seems the same fear of theft. It is a different culture. I return to the school issue. Many of these LTN and CPZ interventions are pegged to protecting children's lungs. Setting aside the fact that LTNs are making pollution worse in some areas, I still want to know what the plan is to solve the school run conundrum? Even in Denmark I gather around 25% of children cycle to school...so what happens with the remaining 75%.