wulfhound

I think London Fields Lido is still shut - Tooting definitely is. West Reservoir in Haringey looks to be open - likely to be busy with everything else shut, but it's massive so you should be OK.

Kind of agree ed26, I'm a big fan of blocking off side roads where possible, but the banned turns on main roads (and especially BETWEEN main roads) need to be reinstated. I don't know why they didn't reinstate the Grove Hill Road right at the time they blocked off Champion Hill - can only guess that it would have allowed too much traffic to cut through from Avondale Rise.

No, I don't know of it at all. Zero information one way or the other. You could presumably FoI it if you wanted. But equally, I don't think we should dismiss the views of children. Rather, I think their perspective on the world is a valuable one, and that their day to day experiences matter. Do you?

No - and I don't think a 5 year old could comprehend something like the OHS programme. An 8 or 9 year old? Maybe. At least to the limited extent of how it relates to their day to day lives. Which is as much as most of us do, if we're honest. I'm a firm supporter of 16 year olds being be able to vote in elections - they pay tax, they can get married, etc.. Are they a picture of cognitive perfection? Heavens no, but one could point to counter-examples at any age. And they'll be around to live with the consequences a lot longer than the rest of us. That rather depends on whether or not the teachers support it. I'd say they're equally capable of stirring up the PTA's towards an anti response - especially those schools with large catchments and hordes of well-connected parents arriving by car every morning. I don't think _any_ of us, for or against, knows what the outcome will be. Even most of the proponents will have a price that they're unwilling to pay, a set of circumstances that makes the scheme unjustifiable. I'm sure that the council and councillors do. Equally, any rational opponent should, I hope, have a that's-not-so-bad-after-all scenario in mind. (There will be some who just don't like change, or don't agree with the message that change is needed, but I think that's a minority) Personally no, but I don't live that close to this one. I wouldn't be surprised if both camps try to play the numbers game - although honestly I think turning consultations in to a popularity contest as seems to have happened in the last few years is a rather silly distraction from the actual aims of the consultation process (which is supposed to be, to discover and, if necessary mitigate, hardships and disbenefits caused by a scheme). "52:48 YOU LOST GET OVARR IT HA HA" doesn't really do anyone any favours.

Why would adults' responses count for more than childrens'? At least those old enough to read and write. Putting down a me-too response in your 3yr old's name doesn't strike me as fair play. Excluding people on grounds of age seems like a slippery slope to all sorts of unpleasantness. - Ignore all responses by over-75s because they won't be around to live with the consequences of climate change? - Give extra weight to those with ?50k and above salaries because they contribute more in tax & their time is more valuable? Nope, I didn't think so.

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/6687/explaination_of_experimental_traffic_orders-36785.pdf

@exdulwicher Agree, with a couple of provisos. Firstly, that people trust the council to keep to their word on the "do it right" bit, and not allow cheaply-done temporary schemes to become permanent by the back-door. Public mood here and elsewhere is pretty sceptical about the council and politicians generally... personally I think people are mostly too sceptical about local politicians (who are mostly trying their best, even if we don't always agree with their views), and not sceptical enough about national ones (less said about them, the better).. but in any case, there needs to be trust for this to work. Secondly, that they set some clear and representative criteria that a scheme can be held to account on. Bus journey time delays and air quality measurements on the roads suffering displaced traffic are probably the most important one; traffic volumes on residential roads outside the scheme boundary are another. They have to be able to define "works" and "doesn't work" and be accountable to those measures.

Seems fair to me - worth pointing out that consultations aren't supposed to be a popularity contest - it shouldn't be about how many in favour or against - it should be "does it achieve the aims of the council's strategies, without causing undue hardship, disproportionate damage to businesses" & suchlike. Whether they actually play it that way is a different question, but anybody whose life is made materially worse during the trial (whether due to longer journeys, displaced traffic, loss of trade) should have a right to be heard and their circumstances taken in to consideration. I personally don't see the harm in trying it out for a few months with cheap-and-cheerful materials which can be easily (re)moved if necessary. The schools are still largely out, the main roads are quieter than usual outside rush hour. Don't even think about expensive permanent works until it's been tried though, as it's reasonable to think that alterations might be needed.

@dande I have elderly and car-dependent relatives, although not in this area.. I can understand their trepidation (especially in the light of CV19, a terrifying experience for many), but at the same time this reads a little of hyperbole when weighed against the likely reality of five or ten minutes more in the car a couple of times a week. Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they can't make it permanent without a full consultation, at which point those affected will be able to report their lived experience of the outcome. If that turns out to be ten minutes' extra in the car twice a week, that might be a price worth paying. If it ends up being half an hour sat in fumes on the South Circular each way just to get to the GP, much less so. But the only way to find out is to try. I think this viewpoint has been somewhat overblown by people who, overtly or otherwise, want to maintain the status quo. Most if not all of the large mid-C20th housing estates in our area are low-traffic by design: by the time they were built, the problems caused by traffic were widely understood. There are specific roads that need to be kept a close eye on though - Pytchley Road is one that springs to mind, I don't know if any of the current plans are likely to displace traffic on to it, but if so it needs an intervention or rethink.

It's not in the council's gift, at this point. Running bus services is TfL's job, and in principle they can, and should, run more - but it costs money. A lot of it. And TfL's finances are an utter disaster right now - to the extent that they've had to ask for an emergency bailout. The idea of a self-funded transport authority running buses with maximum capacity of 15 people (single-decker) or 20 (double-decker) and breaking even doing so is obviously unviable. Central Government is now running TfL on a very short leash. If you believe, as I do, that public transport is a public good, they are who we need to lobby, but good luck getting anywhere with that. And that, I believe, is why we've landed where we've landed. No more space to accommodate extra cars - and air quality a more critical issue than ever. No more money to run extra buses or trains - and not enough capacity even if they did. We all recognise that there is a proportion of the population who cannot walk, cycle, scoot etc. for most of their trips - but they really do need to get _everybody_ that _can_ to adopt active travel of one sort or another. It seems fair to say that we're still a very long way from that goal (even for fairly narrow interpretations of "can" - for example, "able-bodied, working-age people with less than ten miles to travel") and that drastic interventions are needed.

Bravo @sim1 for showing the way forward. "Be the change you want to see in the world". This echoes my experiences 100%. Bellenden Road on a cargo bike is horrid - many drivers don't give you the extra time or space needed to get around the corners safely. Wish Lambeth would hurry up and build the segregated cycle lane we've been promised for Rosendale. With that plus Southwark's proposals at DV, plus something to address Turney & Burbage Roads (I can't tell if the Village plans will make those two worse or better - anyone?) we'd be well on the way to a comprehensive network.

A low-powered moped is a very different beast from either a bike or a motorbike. Has neither the balance demands of the former, or the terrifying-for-many, exhilarating-for-some acceleration and power of the latter. The talk around the pending legalisation of lightweight e-scooters suggests that those, unlike mopeds, will be able to go anywhere cyclists can, i.e. cycle lanes, cycle paths in parks, and permeable road closures, and therefore away from cars a lot of the time. Could be quite liberating for people who are reasonably agile but for whom bikes aren't an option.

Electric moped, 50cc equivalent? Don't need CBT if you have an old driving license; if you don't have one, it's just a day. No pollution, no C-charge or T-charge. I suspect they're going to have to hurry up and legalise the 250w class e-scooters for road use also, which will be a lot less expensive and likely exempt from CBT, but they'll be speed limited to something pretty slow - 12 or 15mph.

Because they don't need to - traffic is blocked out from the get-go. The permits etc., while certainly in some ways more intrusive and bureaucratic than simply building a house in the middle of the carriageway, create a kind of virtual cul-de-sac that can be ignored in specific situations (say if the major road gets temporarily closed for works, or an ambulance is trying to get somewhere in a hurry).

That you can freely walk, cycle, scoot in and out of - and still drive in and out from one end. Not very gated then - cul-de-sac would be a more accurate description.