northernmonkey

And some santander bikes for that route would be nice too - the idea of too hilly doesn't stack up - its a gentle slope along that way and being able to leave a bike at Brixton that you weren't worried about not being there for the return journey would be great.

East Dulwich Grove has always been horrific for cycling - its a definite no with kids and best avoided as an adult. The section between JAGS and Charter ED used to be even worse when it was fully parked up with cars - at least now the CPZ is in, the congestion isn't quite so packed in, but still a horrible bit for cycling. I did see something in James McAsh's newsletter re a feasibility for a cycle lane so that would make a massive difference on there if it was possible. Further round Village Way just has speeding cars now its quite wide and empty and then it gets worse up to Herne Hill. These days I tend to avoid the whole thing by going round the back of Trossachs / Hillsboro and then down Calton, through the village and up Burbage / Stradella. Its a less direct route but probably indicative of the levels of detours cyclists routinely make to try to stay safer because of the huge volume of vehicles on our roads and the poor driving that exists. That hasn't changed, but at least now there are some safer alternatives, whereas previously i could face head on traffic on either East Dulwich Grove or Calton Avenue! We need more of them to be properly joined up to create a safe network of routes though.

Is there a possibility that the roads you used to cycle on are no longer the best ones for cycling? For example, i saw a post stating that the LTNs were a problem because the cycling numbers on Lordshop lane and goose green roundabout had dropped. I think that actually this proves that they are working as they are providing a safe cycling route and have removed cyclists from what is an unsafe roundabout for them regardless. I never used to go along Melbourne Grove as it was a narrow road with double parked cars and took a lot of cut through traffic so it wasn't safe. Now its a joy to cycle down so i would always go down either Colwell or one of the other streets at the bottom end and cycle through that way. If i needed to go east towards Peckham I would probably use Melbourne, Ashbourne and across the roads between Lordship and ED Road. Finally - as you've just returned to cycling, you might be interested to try out the Southwark cycle buddies scheme - or the cycle confident lessons paid for by the council. They can help with best routes for a specific journey. I am very sorry to hear about your injuries from being knocked off your bike and can imagine it must have been very hard to start cycling again after that. spark67 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have started cycling again nervously after being > injured by a van pulling out of a junction without > looking at the end of 2019 on the south circular, > while I was cycling to work (I have permanent > damage now too)...And I have found the roads I > used to cycle on horrendous, especially Lordship > lane, you just feel like you are surrounded by > traffic and fumes, with frustrated drivers at the > wheel (recipe for disaster as I have found out) > Yes there are a few quiet side streets, but None > are on my route to work, and if they are youre on > them for about half a minute.... I see nothing > here from my personal experience thats benefiting > commuting cyclists as claimed. > maybe other people have a different experience, > but its not mine.

It isn't an unreasonable request at all - would definitely make it again. The spaces could be either pay by phone or residents if spaces are a concern. Just bear in mind that pay by phone generally limited to a shorter time than the hours of operation of the permits so may not be the workaround for longer term visits.

Assume though that builders / plumbers etc will be visiting residential addresses - if so they can get the residents to provide visitor permits. Cheaper than pay by phone too!

Totally agree - i don't need a cargo bike the whole time - but there are times where one would be really helpful and the alternative default would be a car. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd love to see some sort of cargo bike > rental/share scheme locally... > > This is a great idea - exactly the sort of thing > that the Council should be thinking about funding > (or part funding a private business) as part of > its strategy. I've got pretty good at two > panniers and a backpack but for really heavy or > bulky items it would be great to have another > option.

Ps assume you mean slick tyres rather than flat - if not can lend you a track pump!

Dulwich park actually has quite a lot of cycle parking now - Peckham rye is less good. Both could use more though. Depends what you're doing. If you're playing tennis or something then yes need racks, if you're going to meet someone then take the bike with you. My view is that the less time your bike is left out of sight the better!

Given that Terms are the same size as a normal bike - I'd go with yes they should. If you'd be in a constant state of anxienty re the bike then there is bike insurance too. You have to lock up appropriately but companies such as Laka offer good options on cargo bikes. In terms of hangers, they are often being placed on DYL. They don't obscure vision like SUVs so can be seen over and so its a practical work around that doesn't need to take up car parking spaces. I also note the comments on 'people haven't given up their cars' - its right they haven't, but they are switching local journeys to non car. Whilst a Tern is an amazing bike and can do most of the city family requirements, its not a practical option for longer distance journeys to see family outside London etc. More car sharing / better train options all play into this but aren't there now - but none of that affects whether the cargo bike replaces local car journeys and it is this replacement of city driving that we urgently need. I think that your comments of 'people have enough to deal with now simply trying to earn a living and juggling family commitments' is quite telling, the point of switching to using a bike isn't a 'hair shirt' approach made to feel worthy, but actually a practical and more useful way of getting around a city, with less stress, more time and more activity.

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) The point about how you wouldn't want to leave a bike like that for any length of time is also an issue - one of my key considerations in cycling to new places is thinking about where I will leave my bike safely and whether it will be there when i get back. Generally this isn't something people have to worry about with cars (Range Rovers aside!). We need much more proper cycle storage - sheffield stands etc and bike theft needs to be taken a lot more seriously. All that said, the bike that Karim is sharing photos of is immensely practical for lots of families locally. Options such as ground anchors, alarms and cctv can also improve security if having to be left outside.

@First Mate , you're right in that these bikes are reasonably expensive (though compared to a small car, which they are a genuine replacement option for in a city, they are very cheap and the running costs are significantly lower). More needs to be done on the cost side to offer subsidies for such bikes and community hire schemes of cargo bikes (especially the box type ones) would be particularly useful. I think its understandable that Karim doesn't want to give precise details of how he personally stores his bike, this might result in a security risk for him. Tern GSDs are brilliant though in that they are not really any bigger than a standard bike, whilst having loads of carrying space. they can also be stored upright so can take up very little room there. @Karim - thanks for sharing more photos and trips you've been able to swap, its really inspiring and helpful to show that there are alternatives and in most cases they're manageable and quicker.

So each sign is costing ?15 - excellent! I guess, like the fines, its totally optional so up to people what they want to spend their cash on. kntrade2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > {Great, every one on display counts. > > The deal is ?5 per sign, so you probably need two > so you get one facing each way to the traffic and > ?5 for the pole if you need one. > > Please PM with your phone number and we can > discuss collection/delivery. > > David} > > SO YOUR A MONEY MAKING MACHINE TOO. Great.

I guess there are a lot of different issues wrapped up in that. For example - there are those who would rather everything 'just went back to how it was' - despite that being unacceptable by any standard now apparently, and using any cars queueing at all as the rationale. Then there are those for whom the changes have led to a worsening of traffic at peak times - most noticeably on Croxted Road - and it would be hard to find anyone who wouldn't support additional measures there to address this - those measures might be changes to traffic prioritization and the lights in the first instance. In terms of addressing not only rising pollution but also the inactivity crisis in our population though we do need bold changes. Are we now stuck that we cannot make any changes where any road at all becomes more congested as a result of realigning traffic? If so where do we go from here? One of the key soundbites is around supporting measures to reduce traffic overall, but really what is that? Is it road user pricing with the associated impact on poorer people or those more reliant on cars or is it further still in terms of wider traffic exclusion zones at certain times - eg no private vehicles at all with the exception of blue badge and taxi during school hours? 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. Apparently no level of congestion is acceptable on our A roads - maybe its time to be bold?

Great post DC - whilst change is hard it is very important. Perhaps one of the positives from these discussions is how unacceptable queueing traffic of any kind seems to have become to a much wider sector of society. Presumably then we would assume that this would translate to much greater support for more radical measures to curb driving locally? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi @PollyGlot > > Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber > electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See > link to article "the trend towards purchasing > bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to > reduce emissions from the transport sector" > https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revol > ution/ > (also reported in The Guardian) > > I don't expect to change your mind as we all seem > to be fairly decided either one way or the other > on here, but here's some alternate views on the > points you made: > > > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction. > The idea behind the measures is that people will > opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do > so. There's been a significant increase in school > children cycling in the area. I see lots more > families cycling on the school-run now and it > would be a shame if they all went back to using > cars - which would just clog up the streets > again. > > > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable > increases in pollution. > I would support any measures to improve congestion > on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car > parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, > road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to > link up the safe routes. > > > 3. Impact on local businesses. > It's impossible to tell what the impact on > businesses has been until we are back to normal > after the pandemic. > Claims that traffic measures have impacted > business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to > me. > > People say businesses on Melbourne grove suffer > because there are not enough cars, and those on > Lordship lane suffer because there are too many > cars. How can both be true? There is plenty of > evidence (TfL) to show that people spend more at > pedestrianised shopping areas. > > > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed > Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up > emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 - EVs > would cause the same congestion and delays. > Permanent cycle lanes around London are wide > enough for emergency vehicles. > > > 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida > Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of > the barriers. > See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion > it's harder for our officers to get down streets' > and that she was in conversation with TfL to > address any difficulties. > > There are old existing 'LTNs' such as housing > estates, cul-de-sacs and bollards to filter roads > all over London and cities everywhere. New road > layouts take time to adapt to (but less time than > 10 years to phase out motor vehicles). You might > be interested in this study on crime figures in a > low traffic neighbourhood: > > 'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic > neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease > in total street crime ..and this effect increased > with a longer duration since implementation (18% > decrease after 3 years). An even larger reduction > was observed for violence and sexual offences, the > most serious subcategory of crime. The only > subcategory of crime that increased significantly > was bicycle theft.' > https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ftm8d/ > > > 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the > road. > The danger to pedestrians is cars - petrol or EV. > SatNavs have been re-routing cars down residential > streets for around a decade. A mile driven on a > minor road results in 17% more killed or seriously > injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an ?A? > road because minor roads tend not to have > infrastructure like pedestrian crossings, zebra > crossings and there are more parked cars so less > clear visibility and safe places to cross. > https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2018/ > august/are-route-finding-apps-making-streets-more- > dangerous/ > > In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is > clearly spending millions on a problem that > receding fast'. > > Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out > is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve > problems as outlined above. Southwark have > declared a climate emergency and are elected on > their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase > active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn.

Rockets - I'm pretty sure that the 'kerbs' referenced in the report aren't just dropped kerbs for road crossings (or the figure would be higher than 25,000 by a massive multiple), but instead where there is a raised pavement type thing across what was previously a road. The kerb segregation is probably more prevalent in 1980s housing estates I'd imagine though than on London streets.

I think that Jones bread is a mix of Snapery and Little Bread Peddlar. Butter & Crust also deliver snapery on a Sat am.

Its true that the wait for hangers is ridiculous. Southwark know this yet their response is another consultation to let them know where people want hangers. Perhaps they could use some of the fines income to pay for a rapid roll out of bike hangers, with initial priority for streets where lots of people have no outside space or front gardens / driveways?

Time for a re read. I said that its not the question of whether there is an underline or not that is offensive - its the crass slogan that the Dulwich Alliance chose - something they've acknowledged was offensive, and has been replaced.

No, still not missing the point. Pickwick Estates displayed a tone deaf poster in their window - its not the yellow line or lack of that's the concern here. Without the crass slogan, the highlighting or not wouldn't be in point! Whilst obviously, Dulwich Alliance are responsible for the campaign, that doesn't absolve individuals of personal responsibility so probably best to read things before displaying in the window.

This has been covered a lot upthread and I'm not going to go over it all again here - but what should be clear that having an individual view is also very different to an organisation designing, mass printing and dispatching posters. The Dulwich Alliance has now accepted that they made an error in judgement in this wording and has a new poster that some people and businesses have now swapped so in that respect the problem has been 'addressed'. It will remain to be seen whether the Dulwich Alliance's efforts to distribute their posters and flyers will be matched in their endeavor to ensure that their supporters don't continue to display the offending poster!

Not sure that anyone putting up a tone deaf poster is 'deserving of an apology', rather they should have a think about whether it was good judgement to put it up in the first place. It is possible to support a campaign and yet still exercise some judgement as has been stated previously.

cittykitty - this is the 3rd thread you have started on here looking for people to support you. I think that either people aren't having the same issue, or perhaps the people you are seeking aren't using the forum. Have you knocked on your neighbours doors to ask them, it might be easier? When i first moved to London I had a flat opposite a school roof terrace. It was great but i was out at work all day and when i was home, the school wasn't in. Thats clearly not the case for you. I do think from your posts though that it might be worth getting some advice from Shelter in relation to the damp issues you've mentioned. They are firmly within your landlord's remit to sort out, unlike noise from a school which they can't control.

Zorya - read the thread. No one has objected to people having posters expressing concern about road changes in their windows. Many people have pointed out that the slogan chosen was inappropriate. A fact that has even been acknowledged by the organisation printing and distributing the leaflets. I did see that there is a new poster out today and that Fashion Conscience has updated theirs (sure others will have too, I just walked past theirs as its on a main road). Pleased to see that the new poster isn't offensive which was the focus of this discussion.

Not sure you're helping the Dulwich Alliance campaign there zorya!

This is a discussion about whether a slogan is ill judged and offensive and whether people should be encouraged to remove it. Regardless of whether you find it offensive or not, plenty of people do and therein lies the current issue with it! Haven't even discussed the first part.