exdulwicher

Because the council manage issues like public safety, licensing, road closures, noise control, liaison with partners/sponsors/emergency services. The land is owned and managed by the council and "community" is part of the council's remit. I'm (marginally) less bothered by the rubbish issue (bear with me!) because after an event the park usually gets blitzed completely so *everything* gets tidied up. It's the low level "background" littering which happens constantly that gets ignored because it's "only" a couple of crisps packets or a drinks can... There was a festival on at Brockwell Park as well on Sunday although I only saw some of the aftermath of people leaving the area. Lot of police and stewards around, it all seemed relatively in control. Didn't see what the park looked like though.

Conversely, there was an unmarked white van and two guys unloading 4 or 5 bikes outside Sainsbury's at The Plough earlier directly into the marked parking bay. Maybe it depends on the guys driving..? Also, if you're a Lime user, the system gives you credits and discounts if you move badly parked bikes. I found it entirely by accident when I picked up a bike and, on finishing my ride, popped it into a parking bay and my app pinged up to say "thanks for moving a badly parked bike, we've given you a free ride!" I'm not yet quite at the stage where I'll go hunting badly parked bikes to get discounts but it's worth knowing!

They've moved loads of them up to central London for the RideLondon Freecycle event today. https://www.ridelondon.co.uk/our-rides/ridelondon-freecycle

As a regular user of Lime bikes, I think that they, and the scooters, are brilliant but I'll respectfully disagree on your point. Pavement clutter in general is a total pain for many reasons - this isn't just bikes/scooters but fibre cabinets, advertising boards, electric car charging points and cables all taking ever more space away and making it very difficult for wheelchair users, people with prams/buggies, partially sighted people etc. It's definitely not just bikes - in fact I think that as bikes are relatively new on the scene and quite distinctive, it's easier to have a go at them than any of the more established issues and poor vehicle parking is definitely more of a problem but pavement clutter is, quite rightly, a massive issue for many people.

To be fair, the first 40 pages of this thread contain numerous references to how the May '22 council elections would be a referendum on all things LTN, the undemocratic socialist dictators in Tooley Street would be sent running for the hills, the silent majority would rise up and give them what-for, it would decide once and for all the fate of LTNs... Oh. Err... Guys? They've been voted back in...with an increased majority... How do we spin this?! Quick, tell them it's an anti-Tory vote, everyone is is fed up of the Partygate lies, but they still hate LTNs... Whether it's an anti-Tory vote or a pro-LTN vote (or a combination) will probably never be answered but it's not unreasonable for an elected councillor to say that the policies promoted by them are ratified by the election results. Happens in every council and Government!

They'll be in touch with Lime, yes.

The e-bikes aren't on a trial scheme, it's the e-scooter rental scheme that is being trialled.

They're all inter-related. You can't "just" look at CO2 or NOx or particulates on their own. Transport is the UK's largest emitter of CO2 and, contrary to this: it is a very serious problem. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere now is up at 420ppm and that rise has happened in the last 100 years - for the previous 500,000 years it's been around 280ppm. Also in that time we've managed to remove about 50% of the planet's foliage and the temperature rise has now impacted on the ocean's ability to absorb CO2. You're right that CO2 isn't the most potent GHG on it's own but it's the longest lasting. Methane is worse but it degrades much more quickly. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ No it doesn't: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf There are numerous other studies about the decreased pollution of lower speed limits. And as before, we're not just talking about CO2 - increased braking and acceleration cycles result in considerably more particulate pollution. I'm not sure anyone said they did but that's not the point. They still impede traffic, there's still a huge amount of energy and resources tied up within them. Its like saying the woodburning stoves don't cause any pollution when they're not being used so we can all have one cos they're fine when not lit...

Process of validation, time, resources, the fact that most people don't understand data anyway and it needs to be worked up into a presentable format showing clear information about pollution/traffic trends... Quarterly updates are about as precise as you need to be and to factor in seasonal variations, school holiday periods etc but annual works just as well for that. Air pollution in particular is not easy to monitor or model because it's so weather dependent (although as a general rule the fewer emissions going into the air from whatever source - transport, heating etc, the better...) That's been tried - every day people can see how congested the roads are and every day, they choose to contribute to it. Every school has notices outside saying "do not idle your engine" and "do not drop your kids here" and every day there are 4x4s all over the pavements, double yellow lines, blind corners etc dropping the kids off. And everyone thinks it's OK for THEM - their child is carrying a cello/tuba/harp, their child can't walk far, their child is running late. THEY are only dropping the kids off like this cos it's on the way to work, it's all these OTHER parents who should be ashamed of themselves. THEIR car is electric, it's fine to drive cos it doesn't pollute... THEIR journey is essential, everyone else should/could walk/cycle. The problem is EVERYONE thinks like that.

Is it just me or are there more goldfinches around than usual? There's always a few but there seem to be more/bigger flocks of them this year. They seem to move quite rapidly through an area, demolish a bird feeder between them then disappear off again.

I suspect you've actually hit on part of the issue. Southwark (as with many boroughs in London and cities outside London as well) are moving a lot of their monitoring to Vivacity sensors. They're the camera type things with double lenses you can see on a lot of lampposts around the area and they're vastly more accurate, they can measure pedestrian, bike, car, truck, bus etc very accurately and also measure things like turning flow. They're largely immune to congestion issues and slow moving traffic, or at least can process this as part of the whole package (speed low, flow low, count low = congestion). Tubes (while good for their intended purpose) can't do micromobiity (like scooters, walking etc) and it takes a lot of number crunching to get things like "if there are x thousand vehicles along [road], how many turn left and how many turn right at the end?" It can be done, it's just a lot of resource and it's not "real time" data. Some of the tube counters upload data regularly, others you have out go out and physically download it which presents a delay to data gathering and assessment. The Vivacity sensors give a huge amount more data but they do require a verification time where you compare what the sensor is telling you with existing data, what you already know about the junction/road etc and modelling which should give you an idea of what to expect. So if you have historic tube counts saying there are 5000 vehicles per day on average and the sensor, during it's verification time, tells you there are 5500, that's probably right. If it's way off then you need to dig deeper to find the issue. However, that verification process is 6 weeks then you need some time to absorb what it's giving you and compare it to the (probably much more limited) data you had before. Once the sensor is active, it'll give you real-time data - you open up a dashboard, select the sensor you want and it'll give you a real time graph of vehicle/pedestrian movements, download the previous day/week/month etc. But that's a huge amount of extra info to process and essentially a new baseline. Whereas before you had a couple of dozen tubes spread around the place, now you've got 50+ sensors giving live real-time data so it's a massive amount of extra info to process and a new "starting point" for data. I'm making a big assumption here, mostly cos I'm working on a similar project outside London so I understand the issue with "we have this, rather limited, historic data and some modelling" with the new "wow, we can accurately count buses and trucks and cars and pedestrians and see which direction they're going and speed and density and flow!" along with the usual secondary question of "what do we DO with all this?!" which is kind of where we come in with processing help and support. Fantastic system, takes some getting used to though. Also doesn't mean that what came before is "wrong"; this is just a far more detailed way to view it.

Can you conspiracy theorists please make up your mind what spurious shite you'll post about these counters cos I've seen the "it won't register vehicles below..." speeds variously quoted as 10kph, 10mph and 20kph. None of which are right by the way but it'd be nice if you could agree some consistency. Thanks. Also, if you could understand that there are in fact multiple ways you can measure traffic, it's not just counted off ONE pneumatic tube. Thanks again.

Oh are we back on the "I pay road tax" argument? Roads are paid for by council tax (for local roads); strategic road network / motorways etc are government funded via National Highways. There are very few hypothecated taxes - what you pay as "road tax" (correctly called Vehicle Excise Duty) or Fuel Duty doesn't go to the roads - it just goes directly into government coffers to be spent on whatever our wise government deems necessary. There's a separate argument there because fuel duty revenues are dropping substantially due to more EVs so there's going to have to be a rethink to plug the large gap in finances. At the moment that's coming from things like parking charges, congestion / clean air charges but again, with EV (and most modern ICE cars) exempt from ULEZ/CAZ, there's going to have to be another think on that front as well. What tax should pedestrians pay for using the pavement - that's public realm? Maybe kids should pay some tax - after all we send them to those taxpayer-funded schools and give them things like playgrounds? Paying more tax doesn't mean you get more rights to anything.

I agree, I'd like all leadership contenders to have "can look solemn and carry a big sword" on their CV. Vital skill in this modern age. Anyway Liz Truss didn't need a sword, she managed to slice the economy to ribbons using just the thoroughly blunt instrument of her mind. And I was definitely reminded of the Monty Python scene...

Report it anyway - even just a rough idea of where it's coming from will be sufficient for the council and yours is unlikely to be the only complaint. If they've got multiple complaints all with rough info of "it's a few houses along" or "it's out the back" they can traingulate it fairly accurately. Put it this way, there's nothing to lose by reporting it. Keep a diary of when it happens - date, time and duration - cos it'll all be important to build a case. A one-off is easy to dismiss but regular breaches will get looked into.

This is one of the challenges that you get with parking. Suppose a station has a small car park and, when it fills up, people start parking on the surrounding streets to the detriment of residents, deliveries etc. Or alternatively, a paid-for parking system is introduced (like in Dulwich Park). To avoid that, people again search out free parking on surrounding streets - there are notable other issues with this such as "cruising" (where people are driving round and round for ages trying to find a space which further adds to congestion etc). To solve this, a CPZ (or some other restriction like double yellows) is introduced and to avoid that, people start parking further out again. Like LTN's, it's a bit of a catch-22 situation - they don't work well in isolation. If you have a small CPZ (eg, around a station), people simply park for free outside it and walk in. So you end up needing more CPZ. That in itself is not a bad thing - parking controls are one of the most effective means of private vehicle constraint. The issue with resident permits is that it costs a lot to administer (and the system needs to be self-financing) and it is not entirely equitable - OK not much in private car usage is equitable but those with big driveways effectively have their own zero-cost parking while those with on-street parking have to pay. As an aside, you get the same with ULEZ - those who can afford to buy/lease an EV or other compliant vehicle do so and then, because they've paid a lot of money for it they want to, or feel that, they should use it as much as possible and the at-source payment is near zero - no ULEZ, no parking fees at home etc There are further considerations - a vast amount of public space is given over to (effectively free, or very highly subsidised) storage of private property which is again extremely unfair. There's a good report here on the issue: https://centreforlondon.org/publication/parking-kerbside-management/ It's not an easy thing to solve though. Parking is, quite accurately, regarded as a "third rail" in political circles. Touch it and you die!

Technically, terrapins are a type of turtle... They've been around for years. Occasionally, they've been pulled out of Dulwich Park ponds as well. No idea if they're actually breeding or if it's always just a couple of pets that have been dumped.

that's a bit nosy (I’d like to know if he paid cash for it) so what if he did ? He won't have paid a penny for it. There'll be some billionaire Brexit backer / Tory donor / media mogul who has bought it as a "gift" for him. Well it's useful to know where the paparazzi are going to be camped out!

Tracksuits?! Do you mean "active leisurewear"...? Not the organic cotton ones that M&S have, no... 😉

Social media has a lot to answer for in these cases. The problem with the "positive engagement" aspect is that the people who listen to the message already know it (to a greater or lesser extent). The people who don't care will continue not to care. And now, social media has given them a way of answering back. Look at any tweet from the local police saying (for example) "it's cold and wet out there, watch for icy patches, slow down..." There's a torrent of abuse in the replies telling them to go and catch some real criminals, get the council to fix the roads, stop being the nanny state. Same in any of those countless "share the road", "respect other road users", "share with care", "think bike"... Every time there's any sort of road safety campaign now, it rapidly degenerates into a free for all of replies that cyclists should pay road tax, horses should be in the fields and not ridden on the roads, the Government are ripping off drivers and so on. About the only campaign that did have any effect was "don't drink and drive" and that took 20+ years to really become accepted - part of that was a lad's drinking culture, I can handle my drink, I've always had a couple of pints and been fine attitude which has taken a generation to really change significantly. No other campaign has ever lasted that long - there's a few weeks of a "be safe, be seen" or something and it might come around again the following autumn as the nights draw in but that's it. Even the "don't use a mobile while driving" stuff has been very quiet - the penalty for it went up but everyone knows there's very little chance of being caught so its rife. Enforcement isn't a vote-winner in most cases - drivers complain that they're being treated as a cash-cow (seemingly ignoring the glaring inconsistency that if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be fined), and doing high profile "crackdowns" are very resource heavy which brings up the other common compliant of "go and catch some real criminals". Given a choice between the scarce police resources being deployed en masse on a junction to catch e-scooter riders or cyclists jumping the lights and the resources being deployed against knife crime or drug dealing,, the latter tend to be higher priority and more politically welcomed... Ultimately, you're right, it needs enforcement. You could set the penalty for phone use at £1000 but people knew the chances of being caught were near zero, they'd carry on using phones. On the other hand if the penalty was £100 but you were near certain to be caught, it'd stop after a few months of £100 fines every time.

Well you don't want bikes left all over the place, that's very clear from this whole thread. So the answer is some form of parking bay. It's more an improvement to the existing trial - sort of why you have the trial in the first place. "Yes, it's good, people are using the scooters/bikes but we're getting complaints about inconsiderate parking, let's fix that..." And then you fix it. To be fair, the same rules apply for Zipcar, they have designated parking bays.

It's more complicated than that. The trial is being run by TfL in conjunction with three operators (Lime, Dott and TIER) and the councils, some of which stopped their trials at the originally agreed point, some of which extended their trials as per the Government's directive. The "extension" of the trials was to hide the fact that the proposed Transport Bill through Parliament to legalise them has been delayed. So the data is with the operators and TfL and is intended to be London-wide; although the councils are all providing feedback it's not up to them to be publishing usage data.

You were bigging up your own scientific credentials and abilities the other day, are you now saying that you can't be trusted to run a statistical analysis?! Research experts know that bias can find its way into any research program – it’s naive to think that any research could be 100 percent free from it. What you're basically doing is accusing the research team of confirmation bias - the sort of belief in this case (correct me if I'm wrong) that if it's anti-car / pro-bicycle, it MUST be good, it simply cannot be any other way and therefore we must publish that. I'd position that the other way around. If they are such vocal active travel campaigners, surely they want the best scheme possible, one that delivers genuine benefits? If it doesn't work because it's caused gridlock on surrounding roads or pollution has gone up or traffic has increased or cycling has decreased, then it's a shit scheme and needs to be called out on that. Dear Council, thanks for the data, it shows the scheme has failed on X, Y and Z, we recommend a complete rethink. But the data, not just from Southwark but other councils as well is, broadly, pretty positive. This is not exactly a surprise, it's been known for years that this stuff works it's just there's been very limited political will to do anything about it. A few minor bits that require further research, better data, longer study or a few tweaks (like the alteration of timings that Southwark did a while ago) because it's not just a single point in time, it's an evolution - people gradually change behaviour, most car owners can't simply get rid of their car the second a plant pot goes in, demographics alter subtly over long periods of time... There are definitely issues over some of the data - that got called out in the original report so they're not trying to hide anything. It details the statistical analysis that was done on it all, removing each set in turn and conducting regression analysis to determine outliers. Sort of related that's why you can't just see the raw data NOW immediately because it's completely meaningless without the broader context. The reports they've done detail the steps taken to avoid bias; there's a research plan, a statement of the hypothesis and an evaluation of that, the topics and data categories are clearly outlined, the results are shown and the paper is open to peer-review. The authors (and their credentials) clearly listed. Never seen any of that from any OneDulwich publication yet strangely you never accuse them of bias... Interesting... But anyway, if you have concerns over the bias of UoW and the research team, I suggest you take it up with the university. You're making some fairly serious claims amounting to professional misconduct so surely, as a concerned citizen, you want that addressed? Best let TfL know as well so they can appoint a truly independent expert. Someone who has never been involved with any LTN in any capacity anywhere yet knows all about them. You need to roll up one trouser leg, put on a cycle clip and give the sacred hand signal only used towards motorists 🖕 Yes but where do I collect my cheque from this well-funded team of militant cyclists?! Is that why they're all in such a rush, hurtling through red lights to deliver the paychecks to the next paid shill researcher or Councillor? Wow, I'm missing out! Back in a bit, just off to apply to UoW...

You're aware that the research/evaluation was already being conducted, yes? It's got nothing to do with the petition. The appointment was made to the most expert organisation in the field of active travel. TfL / DfT opened up a tender for research into LTNs. UoW (alongside other universities and probably a couple of private sector organisations) will have submitted bids based on their expertise. A winner was chosen. That happened before the petition. Besides which it's not "just" Rachel Aldred, there's a team of very highly regarded researchers at UoW with multiple peer-reviewed papers to their names, also backed up now by Active Travel England. I suppose they're biased too cos Chris Boardman is National Active Travel Commissioner, that'll be the next claim won't it? Yes, she was an elected Trustee of London Cycling Campaign between 2012 and 2018. That's an oversight and expert advice role, not a campaigning one. From the LCC website: LCC’s ten-strong Board of Trustees review our work and check the charity is in good shape. They ensure the CEO and staff team are working in the most effective way towards our campaigning and strategic goals. Trustees have ultimate responsibility for making sure LCC meets our legal obligations – ensuring our finances are well-managed, our governance structures are functioning well and overseeing the charity’s internal democracy. And she's not been a Trustee for 5 years. Most academic experts sit on various boards, committees, charities, trusts etc as part of their role. They're expert enough to spot crap schemes, to understand the data and advise non-experts. I can see why the conspiracy theorists have jumped onto this one - it kind of fits neatly in the middle of climate denial and Covid/vaccines as a "control method" for the population. All of this is conspiracy playbook 101. Don't like the research? Conduct ad-hominem attacks on the individuals concerned, claim they're biased. You've done this several times with Rachel Aldred, Peter Walker and Cllr Rose. And now with Will Norman. And it works both ways with anyone who's in favour of general car reduction measures: Pro-LTN + owns a car = y0ur a Ma$$ivE hyp0criTE! Sell Your cAr NOW! Pro-LTN + does not own a car = a tofu-bothering eco hippy who can't possibly understand what life is like for those who NEED cars. Claim that any positive data is faked, biased, flawed, collected over the wrong period of time, collected in the wrong place, collected for too long or not long enough, manipulated, out of date... Any negative data however, even if it's a subset of some otherwise positive data, is an immediate rock-solid reason to scrap everything (in climate denial and transport planning terms it's called Policy Perfectionism - the idea that you should wait until there is a scheme that receives 100% universal approval from everyone and works perfectly. Since no such scheme can ever exist, it's basically kicking the can down the road). The fact is, it's the only place left for you to go to. The idea that somewhere there's an elite team of All Powerful Cyclists who have infiltrated Southwark (who are both too incompetent to run a bath while also conducting a vast data manipulation scam on the side). Cherry pick some data, engage in some whataboutism (what about China / wood burning stoves / aviation...), state that we don't need to do anything now because at some indeterminate point in the future, an as yet undetermined "technology" will fix everything. We can keep driving because "soon" we'll all have electric cars and self-driving cars so we don't need to do anything now. It's all classic conspiracy theory stuff. Deny the data, rubbish the academics. There are climate denial, flat earth and anti-vax videos all over the internet doing exactly that. By all means though if you can find some experts to conduct research into LTNs and produce a document like the recent LTN report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Nsm_GFdH6CpIpPpOZ7hbhLZScgqCAP7ZGI0xi4qDqA/edit which was also followed up with some FAQs: https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/your-ltn-questions then go for it. Note of course that the document above references all the data, including what could and couldn't be used and why - one of the main points coming from it was the need for better data collection all round (although Southwark's was included) so naturally we'd expect to see similar in your report. You'd best reference the hundreds of other reports from around the world on similar schemes which all report similar outcomes, maybe they're ALL lying? The cyclists have got to them too! I get that there are legitimate concerns - there always are with pretty much any transport scheme, building project etc. But don't be surprised to find that 500 people submitting a copy/paste diatribe against the supposed injustices of a scheme is not 500 arguments as to why it shouldn't happen, it's one argument put forward 500 times.

There was an LBC report on police station closures a couple of months ago. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-stations-closing-one-per-week-lbc-reveals/ Thing with bike theft though is it invariably takes a few seconds. Battery angle grinder and hydraulic bolt cutters, both of which fit into a rucksack, will get through pretty much anything. You can get bike hangers with reinforced steel rods welded all through the sides - not sure if that's an off-the-peg thing or something retrofitted but if councils are serious about providing for bikes, secure parking needs to be high up the list - not just the cheapest shed possible. Cargo bikes are ripe for that sort of theft too - if you don't have a garage, you need some sort of hanger or shed for them cos most are far too big to store in a house. Well done to the person filming it.