heartblock

White establishment - taking the knee is a political statement Black footballers who have been racially abused - taking the knee is an anti-racist statement Mmmmmhhh which one should I believe will be the right side of history, as an anti-racist.

I?ll leave it to...

Is it bandied about a lot? I think if you are asking what it means, then maybe you need to start thinking a little deeper.

Johnson embraces chaos, it?s his only political strategy. If you are an anti-racist, you would support the England team, supporting each other by taking the knee.

12% decrease in traffic due to Covid across London, 14% in Dulwich LTNs with a 25-35% in crease in traffic on ED Grove and Croxted and an increase in journey times for public transport. Doesn?t seem to be a successful initiative to reduce pollution or traffic.

With a PM in charge who has written and verbalised his racist beliefs and continued racism inherent in many institutions I?m surprised that anyone who considers themselves an anti-racist would not take the knee. Kaepernick took the knee as a personal statement and this continues to be a personal statement. I couldn?t be prouder of our England team and I couldn?t be more disgusted by the continued racism that can be found throughout England in particular. If you aren?t prepared to speak up and recognise this racism, then you are part of the problem.

👑

My pleasure AylwardS, weirdly my partner has just alerted me to a piece in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/10/went-to-mow-but-stopped-how-uk-cities-embraced-meadows-revolution-aoe It's across the little road and slightly uphill towards the back of the Rye..if you walk towards that crazy modern build of greenish flats. It looks like a bit of scrub, but on a sunny day, it smells wonderful and is full of life.

Fine by me Nigello.. I actively campaign for closure of private schools... and kids to only go to state schools within walking distance and...as I said, I await SE22 to show us all how to do this and I'm all for a permeable barrier on the LL/ EDG junction. Yes Please.

Sure SE22- feel free to meet up with me one morning and show me how to decide which car and van drivers are not making necessary journeys on ED Grove and how to stop them, I'm sure some of the residents in flats on my strip would love to see you in action and learn some top tips. Do wait for School term time though, that's when many of those unnecessary journeys are at a peak. I'm sure the parents dropping of several kids, trying to get to work or running several errands would love you to tell them how unnecessary their driving is - TFL stats - "Parents of pre-school and primary school aged children have the highest car driver trip rates, and young adult households by far the lowest car driver trip rates" I'm more than happy for ED Grove to join the LTN family, I can be just as selfish as all those people in lovely quiet LTNs - a nice big barrier on LL -EDG junction would suit me.

Wildflower meadow is past the children?s playground Peckham side nearer the road. Lots of butterflies. Also pair over Sparrowhawks in flight over the Rye yesterday, calling to each other:)

So now over to SE22...do you own a car? did you vote green? how big is your house? When was the last time you or your partner drove? Do you live in an LTN. You see this is the issue. If you believe that LTNs are socially unjust and do not reduce pollution across the area installed...you have to produce a cv of proof, otherwise you are trolled and stalked on Twitter as is Rosamund Kissi Debra, in fact there was an attempt by the LTN lobby to no platform her! ...whereas locally we know that LTN campaigners live in LTNs, drive cars and do not vote for the Green Party and have never actively campaigned with Ext Reb...for example..yes I am a member. LTNs are about wealthy people having a quiet road...that is it. Traffic was down by 12% across London ...so a 14% reduction, measured by means that can be contested...is not a significant reduction in any sense of data analysis. 2% while EDG went up between 26-35% dependent on comparison -So let?s add that 12% and it is more like 38 to 47%..unacceptable.

I haven?t driven regularly for ten years, probably twice last/ this year and not at all for the preceding eight, my partner has been diagnosed with epilepsy, so the two car journeys this year were car service, MOT and to take my partner to his Covid Jab, after some dodgy battery charging! I voted for the Green Party last Council election and have been an active campaigner for lung and cardiovascular health for 30 years. Among other specialities, I lecture on the harmful and inflammatory effects of pollution as a causal factor in acute coronary syndromes and respiratory childhood and adult diseases at a well known medical school......anything else you want to know SE22? I moved to ED Grove 30 years ago as a relative junior working for a pittance at Kings and I barely afforded the small flat I own on ED Grove, at the time I couldn?t drive, but as I was going on call I learnt to drive so I could attend patients having an acute MI. When I was promoted to work at the Royal Brompton I changed my car to a motorbike after taking my bike licence so I could get to an emergency within 20 mins.. I also do not ride motorbikes anymore. I now walk, cycle and take public transport as a choice. Now after years working for the NHS and in academia and hoping for a peaceful retirement in my small flat with my partner with disability....Southwark has decided to ruin my life and my little flat with awful traffic and terrible pollution, so guess what. I?m angry! Happy?

Whatever the pros, cons and statistical manipulation there is no doubt from this interim data that 1. East Dulwich Grove has overall a 26% increase in traffic and considering it was already an illegally polluted road this is significant 2. Bus journey times significant increased down ED Grove. The other thing to remember is that this ?interim? data was taken during lockdowns and does not include the pollution monitoring we were promised before the consultation finished. Why is this data not included. It seems out of all the roads in Dulwich, Southwark has decided that this residential road with school children?s and nursery outside spaces only metres away from the road is sacrificed so people in Melbourne and Calton can have a quiet life, yet still drive their SUV, diesel car or BMW on ED Grove on their way to their second home in the country.

Oh...look! More traffic... yet.. CAD said I was lying!

Forgive me one more from Southwark's monitoring data.....Bus transit time - Increased in both directions on East Dulwich Grove. So maybe all the posters and all the responses from EDG residents is actually in reaction to increases in car pollution and poor bus services because of the 5 LTNs pouring traffic onto our school, health centre and residential road.

Back...for one comment..so it isn't my PERCEPTION! from data by pro-LTN Southwark...... "Increases in flows have been observed on East Dulwich Grove, Burbage Road, Zenoria Street and Dovercourt Road, the largest of these being +27% on East Dulwich Grove (East). These increases are higher than those recorded in March 2020 at the same sites" but..but...but Dulwich Clean Air...and others said it was my perception.. I didn't know what I was talking about and from one Twitter account I was 'vile'

Scientific method means questioning research, not the person. I have no issue with her funding or her research, I just wouldn?t offer up this research to prove LTNs work. Now, you may choose to reword and rephrase my opinion by accusing me of defaming her character, but I so obviously am not personalising, I am commenting on the data and how it is used by others. This is why I thought to leave the conversation, because of the twisting of words and frankly.....a bit of gaslighting. OK really off now, I did try. Bye.

Rararah, really is there any need to be quite so rude? It isn?t a ?character assignation?. I don?t think the articles that are used as proof by others, that LTNs reduce traffic and encourage cycling are rigorous enough in terms of data or interpretation in the articles I have read by Rachel, in the same way I don?t think some articles published in the Lancet or Nature always are up to the mark, if trying to validate a concept. This really is something student scientists are taught and it is called a critical review - something that happens to my research all the time. That is why we have meta-analysis and systematic reviews of multiple research papers. Rachel is a committed researcher, her peer reviewed papers on cycling safety are excellent and the LTN papers are interesting and valid in terms of perception by cyclists and thinking about ways to change behaviour, they do not contain any data that proves that LTNs increase cycling, decrease car pollution with any statistical significance. Now...can we get back to LTNs in Dulwich and the temporary or permanent nature of this things and WHEN is Southwark going to release the pollution and traffic data it promised?

'Centric is a neuroscience research lab creating strategies to improve public health. We work as a research & data driven lab to help organisations make effective decisions for supporting mental and physical health, specifically for communities that are the most susceptible to poor health outcomes' but more importantly...did you read it? I though this pertinent and might have helped Southwark plan appropriately 'Understanding the mobility issues of local residents helps identify the micro-solutions/mitigations needed to ensure that large infrastructure changes such as LTNs do not create any new inequities'

Lastly... One of the best reads on society, mobility, pollution and equality I have read. Grab a coffee and read all of it. An excellent piece of work. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57a5a729414fb58fa3e0e0a6/t/609173a702d0e054885d2ec0/1620145076839/Equitable+Urban+Mobility.pdf

Sorry...I know I?m probably overdoing it today... but an interesting article on bias in relation to encouraging cycling using LTNs etc and optimism bias, by a peer reviewed chief scientist. ?Optimism bias We need to be careful to avoid optimism bias when projecting the impact of measures to reduce transport carbon emissions. The models that are used for this purpose are complex and opaque, with many input assumptions and parameters to be specified. Optimism bias arises when modellers make choices, consciously or unconsciously, that tend towards achieving a strategic purpose. Yet optimism bias leads to outcomes that fall short of those that are forecast. It is now part of the culture of transport planning to foccus on the opportunities for promoting cycling. But caution is needed. When addressing the impact of changing mode share, attention should be paid to the modes from which the shift to cycling is expected. For instance, the well-established Propensity to Cycle Tool (www.pct.bike), which assesses the potential to increase the amount of cycling, assumes that commuters are equally likely to shift to cycling from any prior mode. However, the evidence from Copenhagen and elsewhere indicates that a shift to cycling from public transport is much more likely than from car use, which would substantially reduce the carbon reduction benefits assumed from boosting cycling. If optimism bias informs assumptions about mode shift from cars to bikes, or about the scope for car sharing, then disappointment is likely to ensue.? David Metz is an honorary professor at the Centre for Transport Studies UCL. He was formerly the DfT?s chief scientist.

In many ways...pedestrians (so I?ll qualify, those who main mode of travel is walking, which is pretty much me, even journeys into inner London tend to be more walk than PT, usually a max of 2 hours but have been known to walk back from Lambeth Palace as an example. A great walk, if you just point towards home you discover so much of historic London by winding through the streets) ....have been almost forgotten in Southwark?s LTN ?planning?, the pavements are atrocious, street cleaning awful, well on ED Grove at least, seems that every area an LTN has been put in has newer paving, freshly tarmaced roads, nice seating areas, new plants, new trees..I could go on. Lordship Lane is visited so often by locals and people visiting, but honestly...it does need some money spent on it, the temp barriers could be removed and the pavement extended? Street cleaned more often? And of course the funnelled traffic doesn?t help pedestrians or businesses.

As an observer, there is a lot of walking and cycling on ED Grove, obviously because of the schools, but also as a local route and now a health centre that has far more local services that the previous Dulwich Hospital. The only changes I have seen after the LTNs went in are; 1. Congestion that fills the road end-to-end during the school run/rush hour (this used to be a busy time, but not crawling and idling traffic) 2. Adult cyclists using the pavement or the opposing lane (there has been observed increase in cyclists over the last 10 years) 3. A huge increase of children on bikes and scooters - but on the pavement and travelling at an adults walking pace, have actually been hit on the back of my shins twice while walking to HH station. Again just observations and a bias against car pollution :)

Actually Rockets isn?t so far off the mark. There was a particular push by the LCC and walking as active travel is historically high in this area, probably due to parks and a lovely main road. Lordship Lane is a gem - it?s a shame that Southwark seem to be unable to lavish much love on it. It?s all about the ?square? after all....