snowy

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It also seems to suggest that the council > forecasted 100 hangars for the 20/21 financial > year and only managed to install 55. > > As I have been saying for some time the council > seems unable to put the most basic infrastructure > in place to support its strategic objectives - it > has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs > and should have been spending more time, money and > effort installing bike hangars to satiate the > demand for the ability for residents to store > bikes than cameras to close off Dulwich Village. > > It's really quite damning. You remember there was a little pandemic going on, so staff were probably furloughed? That seems to be reflected in the delivery timeline graphic Glad to see you support the multi million investment (?8m if I?ve got my maths right).

Does that suggest that 2000 people in the Goose Green ward alone have requested a cycle hangar place? And that there?s a waiting list of over 8000 people across the borough for existing hangars, with just under half of that in wards around east Dulwich? There?s a comment to the diagrams that seems to say that they?re looking at new ways of tracking requests for cycle hangars as the demand is so high.

Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I found the minutes for the Lewisham Healthy > Streets schemes. Unbelievable that a scheme that > has such a massive impact on our lives and > infrastructure was decided by a few cyclists and > council officials. The Feb minutes indicate that > the consultation in Lewisham will only include > those inside the LTN. Basically it?s a stitch up. > > > https://lewishamcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads > /2021/02/Meeting-Record-20210217.pdf Unless I?m reading them incorrectly, those are the minutes of Lewisham Cycling which mentions he Healthy Streets scheme

Choked Up is calling on the mayoral candidates to dramatically improve air quality along the capital?s major roads, the so-called ?red routes?, which make up 5% of London?s roads but carry a third of its traffic. Choked Up co-founders, from left, Nyeleti Brauer-Maxaeia, Anjali Raman-Middleton, Destiny Boka Batesa. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian They are calling for a reduction in goods vehicle and private car use, and a renewed focus on ?a world-class walking and cycling network, as well as affordable and accessible zero-emission public transport?.

For the policy geeks amongst us, the Parliament Transport committee is on today as part of their Reforming Public Transport inquiry: https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f4a70a38-f9ff-4284-b1ff-b710bcc256a8 Including the Federation of Small Businesses advocating road pricing.

Thanks for pointing out you don?t really understand peer review!

Hmm, who to believe more - Professor Aldred, publisher of 25 peer reviewed papers at the university of Westminster and winner of the European Social Research Council award for ?outstanding impact in public policy? or Rockets off the internet?

But one that?s not often recommended by traffic planners eg https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-highway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one-way-streets ?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high traffic volumes and may benefit from the introduction of this type of control, but it is likely that: Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other less suitable streets The new one-way street may attract more traffic albeit in the remaining direction Residents may have to access their street by an alternative and less convenient route which may involve the use of other neighbouring streets Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers' perception that there is no opposing traffic Without physical traffic calming there may be an increase in accidents and their severity Some, particularly short sections of one-way street are likely to be contravened by drivers thereby requiring police enforcement.?

Tell me who just said this Keane: "There's no question - none - that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

Given that Jay Rayner also used to post on Urban 75, I?m not sure trolley would be welcomed there either.

And this doesn?t bode well: https://www.rha.uk.net/getmedia/a17d600a-13f1-4034-b15e-ba021df01bd0/The-Rt-Hon-Michael-Gove-MP-1st-February-2021.pdf.aspx

That sounds a little bit Aled?s iPad

That comment reads like the pavements are ok for you and therefore fine for everyone else. Disabled People?s organisations and charities like Age Concern have long complained about the poor state of pavements, tripping hazards, cars illegally parked on them etc. Pavements can also be mixed use eg pedestrians, cyclists in more mixed use streets.

Textbook cakeism

You do realise they?re tested before and with more rapid tests on the day?

Really? Try crossing Vauxhall bridge on a bike at rush hour - the current infrastructure of cycle lanes and phased lights is already very very busy.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could Southwark Council be accused of structural > discrimination... I think so. > https://twitter.com/rosamund_elsfdn/status/1350906 > 689969598471?s=21 Hmm wasn?t he suspended from the Labour Party for saying that ?there no basis for the Jewish race?? His paper is on Liveable Streets - which are slightly separate from the LTN implementation - liveable streets was a Tower Hamlets / TFL initiative.

We will have re-entered the EU before any of that gets built.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > snowy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It?s a different view, and an idiotic one. > > I guess you are too young have been around in the > immediate post WW2 period to appreciate the > sentiments then. This snip from Wiki might help > you understand the ant-war sentiment at the > time...... > > ""The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign > minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to > prevent further war between France and Germany. He > declared his aim was to "make war not only > unthinkable but materially impossible"[3] which > was to be achieved by regional integration, of > which the ECSC was the first step."" > > The ECSC morphed into the Common Market (a very > sensible idea) however the dreamers in Brussels > wanted to fast track towards political integration > so they morphed it in to the European Community > and then further into the European Union. > > So it's origins were deeply rooted in anti-war > feelings and historic resentment (particularly in > France) against the British. Hence de Gaule's oft > repeated "Non". > > So not as idiotic as you might think. Churchill proposed the Council of Europe in 1946 - you can read that speech online citing Aristide Briand as part of the inspiration- due to his work on the Locarno Treaties. So yes, I think your interpretation is blinkered.

It?s a different view, and an idiotic one.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And no mention of bad road layouts causing > congestion and delays to emergency services. Except that the London Ambulance Service just told the London Assembly that LTNs had no impact on response times: unless you know something different:

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s going to become even more complicated soon as > the traffic displaced from DV and Turney/Burbage > goes over the border into Lambeth, I suspect. I > gather there are some skirmishes between Bromley > and Croydon going on. Except that Lambeth Councillors last week voted 54-5 in favour of continued support for active travel. Of that five there were 4 Green abstentions, 1 Tory objection.

Barclays closing their account is more likely to do with their concerns that the activity of the charity is not in line with charity law.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like we have these closures for a minimum of > six months. > > Per yesterday's OneDulwich update which I have > pasted from their email: > > On 19 June, decision-maker Councillor Livingstone > said, ?The measures are flexible as the > experimental nature of the trial allows us to make > amendments and changes within the first six > months.? But he seems to have changed his mind. In > a recent email to One Dulwich on 12 September, he > says, ?The council has stated that we will review > the permeable filter trial after its six months? > The current scheme has only been in place for two > months and we do not believe that this is a > sufficient period within which to fully assess > whether it has been a success.? > > In neighbouring Wandsworth, the council has acted > more quickly, and has decided its scheme isn?t > working. The planters are being removed this week. > In Ealing, Islington and Lambeth, thousands of > people turned out this weekend to protest against > road closures. Transport minister Grant Shapps > ([email protected]), who gave the funds to > local councils to put in emergency measures, said > in the Telegraph last week that some of the trials > hadn?t worked, ?We?re also telling councils that > now the height of the emergency has passed, > there?s time to consult people more. Where some > councils have abused the cash, my message is > clear: speak to local residents, get it fixed or > no more cash.? > > Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on > listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and > a vocal minority who personally benefit from road > closures, rather than the majority who live and > work in and around Dulwich. There were 100 protesting people in Lambeth on Saturday- definitely not thousands

niledynodely Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a child is vulnerable, for example he or she > has suffered abuse at home or whatever, and they > are then confronted with images of splayed legs, > cross-sections of penises in vagines (e.g YOu, me > and PSHE) or cartoon images of people engaged in > sexual intercourse (Spring Fever), I think that > there is a liklihood that these images and the > context could trigger inappropriate behaviours > (which are called sexual abuse although I would > not be so quick to call them that - the authories > would). For me this seems such an obvious risk I > think that the onus should be on the providers of > the material to prove that this won't happen. Of > course it can't be scientifically tested one way > or another, but rates of child on child sexual > abuse have gone up in schools and my hunch is that > some of the more sexualised curriculums have a > role to play. So no proven / evaluated research then.