rendelharris

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree cycling is good exercise for the heart.but > as reducing the risk of cancer that's just > bollocks.doesn't make any difference if you cycle > 20 miles a week or 2000 miles a week.doesn't > matter if your the fittest person on earth cancer > doesn't pick and choose certain people.it effects > anyone It most certainly does and some of the healthiest people I know have had cancer and some of the biggest slobs (like me) haven't - but this study (and others) does seem to show that more exercise lowers the risk. I'm way off being competent to comment scientifically as to why that should be, but unless they're just making up the results it does seem to be a thing.

"Petrol cars are the cause of two thirds of the amount of London NOx emissions (7%) that diesel cars are (11%), according to IPPR?s analysis of 2010 data released by the Greater London Authority." So, 18% of emissions. "And when it comes to the particulate PM10, petrol cars are even worse than diesel, causing 16% and 13% of London?s emissions respectively." Which comes to 29%, doesn't it? I gladly withdraw my claim of 20-30% and replace it with 18-29%, depending on which pollutant is being measured. I think there's some confusion in the report to which you linked: it says that 40% of London's particulate matter pollution comes from diesel vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to private cars. Given that there are somewhere close to a million diesel cars in London, does that seem likely to you? I'll take your apology for implying I was lying re distances as read, shall I?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but > 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense. > > (Good grief - I am defending a UG post...) Well, it has to happen sometimes I suppose...UG thinks that because some cyclists behave badly towards pedestrians, all cyclists should be banned from areas shared with pedestrians, so as some drivers behave badly on the roads which they share with other users, ban cars from them is a logical progression. I guess the confusion is that there are two options, a pedestrian only area or a shared space between pedestrians and cyclists. The Evening Standard headline implies the decision has already been made to be pedestrians only and now they're deciding whether to let cyclists in - in fact no decision has yet been made beyond the fact that motor traffic will be banned.

Cardelia: "For example, Peckham Rye Station to Westminster Bridge northside is actually 4.2 miles." Interesting, you're basically accusing me of lying when I never mentioned Peckham Rye station, I said from Peckham: I take the centre of Peckham to be at the end of Rye Lane, outside the library, from whence, according to Google Maps, it is in fact 3.56 miles to Big Ben by road (oh and from Peckham Rye Station it's 3.94). "One of my favourite ever sayings is "the plural of anecdote is not data"" That's actually quite hilarious coming from someone who answered my statement that Wimbledon-Streatham was as long to drive in rush hour as Peckham-Westminster with "That's not true. Not true at all." without any evidence to back up your assertion. "Any reference for this data?" Unlike for your assertions, yep. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-air-pollution/ "I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove that there will be a net positive effect which will outweigh the negatives." The negatives being your "right" to drive where and when you want? I wouldn't be so rude to call you a nutjob, but your posts on this thread and on others show that you are demonstrably very, very pro-car and very anti any restrictions on motorists. That's fine, you're entitled to be, but then be who you are instead of demanding that everyone with a contrary point of view to your own produce evidence whilst offering none yourself as if you're merely some disinterested unbiased seeker for truth. (Edited for grammar)

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- so since some > cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible > because they think they have an entitlement, or a > monopoly on saving the planet, then they should be > excluded from pedestrian zones I see some car drivers every day who think they have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much sense as your statement. Sorry about your sister, I've got a friend who lost her leg because she was run over by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement at twice the speed limit, should I judge all drivers by him?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought that the 20mph limit did not apply to > red routes. > So there aren't may of those in ED, but OKR and > NKR are obvious examples where traffic can flow a > bit faster. > > Sydenham Hill sticks out as somewhere where 30mmph > could be reintroduced - it feels unnecessary there > and as soon as you get to the end of it, you're > out of Southwark and it's all 30 mph again anyway. Lewisham's had a borough-wide 20MPH limit since last September.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've tried using cruise control myself, but am > only able to keep to a max speed for 30 seconds or > so in Dulwich before having to slow down again for > lights, junctions or traffic. Mrs.H's new Smart has both cruise control and a speed limiter, so she can actually tell the car not to let her go above a chosen speed. Is this not a common feature now? Excellent links by the way, thanks.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there any evidence that at 30MPH you'd be > > avoiding red lights? Surely you'd just be > > arriving at the next red light more quickly > > Surely you'd arrive at the next *traffic* light > more quickly. How do you know it's going to be > red? And how do you know it's going to be green? Traffic lights in 20MPH zones are phased for 20MPH driving, so the smoothest flow through them will be at the posted speed limit.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Focus needs to be on all car use in all of > London, > > not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes > by > > car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as > > much pollution as someone commuting from > Peckham > > to Westminster. > > That's not true. Not true at all. The person who > commutes from Peckham to Westminster is driving > into a highly congested part of town with the > result that they will spend more time idling in > traffic. Their journey time will be longer and > they're causing pollution whilst not going > anywhere. The person commuting from Wimbledon to > Streatham will be spending more time in moving > traffic, meaning the journey time will be quicker > and they're polluting less. Assuming both > commuters are driving an identical vehicle, > obviously. > > Surely the focus needs to be on reducing > pollution? If that means reducing the number of > cars then fine, but lets at least see some proof > that cars are the main cause of London's pollution > problem before we set out to restrict them. > Evidence-based policy please, not ideological > dogma. You've clearly not tried driving from Wimbledon to Streatham in the rush hour. It's a distance of 4.2 miles, Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside is 3.7. The roads from Wimbledon to Streatham are just as congested, if not more so, than Peckham to Westminster - I know this from personal experience and saying "that's just not true" doesn't actually change that. Cars are responsible for between 20%-30% of London's pollution (depending on type of pollution measured), diesel buses about 16%. These are things we (i.e. the GLA) can control, unlike sources such as aircraft pollution, factory pollutants blown from elsewhere. I know you and other car lovers squeal with indignation at the thought of curbs on their use - you might like to consider that pollutant levels inside your car are around 2.5 times those outside, so, with piquant irony, while you're poisoning the city you're actually poisoning yourself even more.

Also many (most?) new cars have the facility to set a limit, and I don't get the argument that one has to concentrate less hard on not exceeding a 30 limit than a 20 one: firstly as RRR points out, the gear change issue identified only applies to certain cars on certain terrain, and secondly I'm not sure someone who finds it difficult and distracting to keep to the marked speed limits is really terribly competent (no personal slight intended), it's just part and parcel of being on the road, isn't it?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't know they were pedestrianising Oxford > Street - that's great (about time too). Seems fair > enough that people shouldn't cycle in a pedestrian > area tbh. As long as there is plenty of bike > parking around the border of the zone, then fine. Seems a missed opportunity to create a major east-west cycle artery at no expense though, doesn't it? There are plenty of areas where shared cycling and pedestrian space works perfectly well - the new plaza outside the Faraday memorial at Elephant for example, and the space on Exhibition Road - and I think it could work well there. This is not to say I actually agree with closing Oxford Street to buses - for once I agree with Dulwich Londoner, where are all the Oxford Street routes going to go? - but if they're going to do it excluding cycles would seem a retrograde step.

The new quietways are encouraging the use of backstreets (as usual with opposition from car drivers who don't want cyclists anywhere). Obviously it's not possible to build segregated cycle provision on most residential streets. For cycle safety it's clearly better to have segregated lanes on main roads than winding routes through often poorly surfaced backstreets where the majority of drivers don't observe the 20MPH limit. Again you reveal your attitude that cyclists don't have the same rights as motorised traffic to be on the road (before you say I'm putting words in your mouth again, this from you in the past: "A city the size of London is not and cannot ever be cycle-friendly like Cambridge or Amsterdam. Road space is a very scarce resource. It should not be allocated to a minority of users"). I wish you'd just admit this. I said to you what feels like many moons ago that obviously action against heavy vehicle traffic would have to be taken, including bans at certain times, encouraging nighttime deliveries, offloading heavy loads onto smaller, greener vehicles outside London, greater use of the river etc. There are solutions, none of them perfect, none of them complete solutions, but it's no good just throwing your hands up and saying "Oh this is always going to happen, you won't discourage them" (which is not putting words in your mouth, that's an exact paraphrase of what you said above). Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London, not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham to Westminster.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, but if driving at 30mph lets you spend less > time at red traffic lights, then you'll be > polluting less. Also, small differences add up, > once multiplied by the number of drivers in > London. Is there any evidence that at 30MPH you'd be avoiding red lights? Surely you'd just be arriving at the next red light more quickly and spending longer with the engine idling, having used more fuel to get up to 30MPH before braking again. If the lights are synced for 20MPH flow, 20MPH will be the best speed at which to take them.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > How many "major through routes" of that nature > > (with low pedestrian and cyclist movement and > away > > from schools, shops, markets and playgrounds) > can > > you think of in London? If you want to keep > Park > > Lane 40MPH that's fine, where else in our local > > area or in central London can you apply that > > description to? > > Let's see... > > Lordship lane runs all the way to Forest Hill and > the South Circular. Most of it is not a high > street. and has schools, shops and playgrounds on it and high cyclist usage > East Dulwich Grove is neither a high street nor > narrow. and has two (soon to be three) schools and a hospital on it, plus high cyclist and pedestrian usage > Many stretches of the South Circular are not high > street. high cyclist and pedestrian usage - anyway, the South Circular's 30MPH anyway isn't it, coming under TfL rather than local council control (and maybe uncoincidentally has a pretty high accident rate) > Parts of Camberwell road. Lots of shops, high pedestrian and cyclist use (and good luck getting to 30MPH there anyway) > Most of the A2 from New Kent road, to Old Kent > road and New Cross gate at least. OK you can have 30MPH there > Brixton Hill. OK > Streatham High road (the limit may already be > 30mph there, I'm not sure). Many shops, very heavy pedestrian and cyclist use So most of the areas you mention do not fit the away from schools, shopping areas and areas of high pedestrian or cycle use criteria. One or two areas you could maybe have 30MPH - though good luck trying to reach it on most of them - and the first thing we'd get (as already happens with the 20MPH Lordship Lane turning into 30MPH South Circular) people whining it was a money-raising trick to catch them out.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You seem to think (or at least this is what I > infer, correct me if I am wrong) that with the > right incentives traffic could be cut to an > acceptable level, so that happy pedestrians and > cyclists can all hug each other while singing > kumbaya in a finally pollution-free city. I beg to > differ. That's not going to happen. Leaving aside the childish comments (wanting clean air does not necessarily make one a happy clappy hippy, you know), so your solution is just to give up: traffic in London will never be cut to an acceptable level. Thank goodness not everyone shares that attitude. Massive traffic free areas are spreading across Europe, they'll come to London one day. The alternative is to carry on having 10,000+ premature deaths per year from pollution, 2000+ KSIs from accidents and numberless children with breathing problems, developmental difficulties and lifelong illness caused by exposure to toxicity. The poor little buggers will be lucky if they have the breath to sing Kumbaya.

edacm wrote: >The point being missed here is that on any given journey >I'd be amazed if anyone could travel at more than an average >of 20 mph in London. Therefore the limit seems reasonable. keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good point edcam. > > Before the 20mph limit was introduced I regularly > drove to Tower Bridge each day (ED>Peckham>Old > Kent Rd>Bermondsey rat run) 8 miles according to > my mileometer. Took 30 mins on average (hold ups, > heavy traffic, lights etc). > > If my sums are correct 8 miles in 30 mins is 16mph So you agree that 20MPH limits are reasonable, it seems. Excellent.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the AA > > Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on > the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more > than 10% with the result that well-intentioned > safety schemes may backfire in environmental > terms. > > On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer > and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets > can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 > miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly > increase CO2 emissions ? burning 1 litre of > unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2. > > http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roa > ds-emissions.html > > The AA's fuel consumption tests were carried out > at Millbrook proving ground by an independent > engineer and car tester, using a fuel flow meter. > > In 2000, the then Department of Environment, > Transport and the Regions argued against reducing > the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions. > (See above link) That report only assesses MPG in completely ideal conditions, and I agree that if you have two cars driving for ten miles on a completely clear road the one travelling 30MPH will (for most models) have lower fuel consumption than the one going 20MPH. However, no account is taken in their figures of acceleration and deceleration, in particular the extra fuel required to accelerate to 30MPH as opposed to 20MPH. In practice, in London, it's virtually impossible to travel more than about 300 yards before having to slow and/or stop for an intersection, lights, jam etc, in which case a car accelerating to 20MPH and down again will use less fuel (and, incidentally, lose no time over its more leaden-footed counterpart). The AA test is a clear example of the problem of carrying out a test in "laboratory" conditions with no regard for real world circumstances.

Jolly good - you ask for the source of my statistic, I show you it comes from a TfL report, you dismiss it as totally meaningless. Care to answer my question above about the roads in this area or central London "with low pedestrian and cyclist movement and away from schools, shops, markets and playgrounds" suitable for higher speed limits?

"RoSPA does not believe that 20mph speed limits are suitable for every road in a local authority area. They should be targeted at roads that are primarily residential in nature and on town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (or potentially high), such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas. Roads which are not suitable for 20mph limits are major through routes. " Both the criticism above and the conclusions are exactly my points! I am all for 20mph in narrow residential roads, or in roads which may be wider but are busy high streets, with cars parked on both sides, people everywhere, and lots of children who might unexpectedly jump onto the street from a parked car which hides them from view (eg the Lordship Lane high street). Like I said, I am not convinced of the benefits of 20mph limits on "major through routes". How many "major through routes" of that nature (with low pedestrian and cyclist movement and away from schools, shops, markets and playgrounds) can you think of in London? If you want to keep Park Lane 40MPH that's fine, where else in our local area or in central London can you apply that description to?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm all for the 20 mph speed limit in fact I think > that it should be applied to all the roads in > Southwarks jurisdiction however I do feel that on > the main road that goes across the top of > Sydenhnam towards Crystal Palace that signage > should be clearer or more frequent signage and the > reason is that there are constantly vehicles > riding right up my back bumper when I'm trying to > adhere to the stipulated 20mph. Agreed - I'd quite like drivers on East Dulwich Grove to stop getting up to the back wheel of my bicycle and hooting as well when I'm doing 20MPH going down towards Lordship Lane - pointing at the huge 20 circles clearly visible on the road just seems to annoy them further...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rendelharris, And the source of the 2/3 > statistics is? TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf page three. Really, you are capable of looking this stuff up yourself instead of every time someone says something with which you disagree demanding sources - something notably lacking from your own posts. Good night.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You miss the point of your own analysis rh. > > An extra 3 minutes x hundreds of journeys = more > time in car burning fuel and spewing out > emissions. Not good. You do know that it takes more fuel (hence more emissions) for a car to drive at 30MPH than 20MPH? Rather basic physics. ETA When including the acceleration requirements, I should add.

Nobody, Keano, and I include myself, who spends much time commenting on the EDF can claim their lives are so busy they haven't got the odd three minutes to spare.

So yet again, you want capacity taken away from completely non-polluting vehicles and given to polluting vehicles because if that doesn't happen the polluting vehicles will keep causing congestion. You approach the whole issue from a "right to drive" point of view which is literally choking London.

During rush hour in busy cities like London, motor traffic very rarely reaches 30mph so I would expect the impact of 30mph speed limits to be negligible. However, 20mph limits would certainly increase journey times outside of rush hour, e.g. for night journeys. This can be a very big inconvenience for all road users, including users of public transport (bus users). Two thirds of car journeys in London are of three miles or less. At 30MPH a three mile journey takes six minutes. At 20MPH it takes nine minutes. Is the difference between six and nine minutes for the majority of car journeys in London a "very big inconvenience"?