Dogkennelhillbilly

> A couple of times I've even had other cyclists > lean on me as I've rounded a bend. This makes perfect sense and definitely happened.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah, > > I think your emphasis is wrong. The priority > should be to improve and invest in public > transport. Cycling too but emphasis should be on > the first There's no material improvement in bus transport possible without removing other vehicles from the road - but look at the moaning about making Lordship Lane bus lanes 24 hours. Even Bakerloo line construction will take a decade - the tube isn't coming to Dulwich any time soon.

"Thinking about it more, maybe it's time for me to move back up that way" 90% of RBKC's schools are located in areas of illegally high levels of pollution. You're welcome to their fantastic road network. https://airqualitynews.com/2018/02/14/kensington-chelsea-backs-ulez-extension/

Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like to brag about, it's how much they love living under the Westway and how there's no traffic!

" some people just live here? Of course it hasn't! It hasn't because you seem to have some delusion that 100% of the populace on this road are somehow operating in the shadows, pulling strings, and influencing local government to help raise house prices" The (Mel)Bourne (Grove) Supremacy.

Dulres3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, no, no, you don't need to read any of that. > > All you need is "common sense" and "stands to > > reason" and some half-remembered stuff about > > Archimedes and Newton. We're sick of all these > > experts and their so-called understanding and > > experience. > > Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you > enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in > the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll > understand the mathematics, so get as complicated > and technical as you like. > > My original point was that the changes in Dulwich > aren?t happening in isolation. There are LTNs > being implemented all over London. Whether you?re > taking a long journey or short one by road, the > fact of the matter is you?re just moving from > over-congested cell to over-congested cell, and > we?re approaching capacity. The sentiment in the > original post was that short journeys are bad, > long journeys are morally justifiable. The reality > is that such a significant reduction in capacity > will affect both equally, with the cumulative > effects across cells making an even greater > difference to longer journey times. > > Traffic planners often reference ?induced demand? > (a concept which itself isn?t as evidence based as > is commonly understood), where increasing capacity > causes more congestion as vehicles appear to > utilise spare capacity. Let?s assume for a moment > this is actually true, by removing local journeys > from the equation you just end up with the same > situation you?re in now. What matters is that > capacity is actually vaguely appropriate for > demand, and not artificially reduced to the point > where things start to fall apart. > > As for electric cars, even if they magically > sequestered carbon and wafted purified air into > the atmosphere as they drove around, they?d still > be subject to the same ideologically driven > policies. It?s obvious at this point it?s not > really about pollution. You're fundamentally misunderstanding three things here: - what induced demand is - no need to discuss it further here, there is plenty of literature free and online - that there is no free market for supply of road space. It is always the state that is a monopolist on road supply, even if it doesn't operate or own it. Road supply isn't "artificially" reduced or increased: it's always created, reduced and maintained by the state for strategic objectives. - there is an insatiable demand for free road space. Trying to match supply to that existing (let alone induced) demand is a fool's errand. We have known this for fifty years - remember that the GLC was planning to put a motorway through Norwood and Streatham! Even if all vehicles ran on wishes and dreams tomorrow, we would STILL have huge congestion problems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

That's definitely an argument to win friends and influence people! 😂

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it before but Fladda in Camberwell is really, really good. FLADDA Fish & Chips 55 Camberwell Church St, Camberwell, London SE5 8TR 020 8127 6297 https://maps.app.goo.gl/eQQ9bxgoJG7bNiAe6

I don't know why people are interpreting changes and cancellations to individual measures as a retreat. The changes are experimental and temporary - it's inevitable and desirable that some of them are going to get binned or altered.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your position > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well as > requiring access to emergency services should, > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of a > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding > rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution to > produce a healthier environment? You can't improve the lives of those with "genuine, urgent needs" without getting rid of the people whose journeys are not necessary. You could make every road in London a dual carriageway and there would still be traffic jams and pollution- demand for free unrestricted road space is always going to exceed supply in London. Everyone - residents, businesses and travellers - is going to have to change (and already is changing) the way they get around and organise things to some degree. That's not going to come without some short term inconvenience and friction.

Everyone thinks their own journey is urgent and necessary. London is overrun with people making urgent and necessary car journeys. That's the whole problem. If people only really drove when it was urgent and necessary to do so, we wouldn't need any of this shit in the first place.

No, no, no, you don't need to read any of that. All you need is "common sense" and "stands to reason" and some half-remembered stuff about Archimedes and Newton. We're sick of all these experts and their so-called understanding and experience.

So the solution to pollution and congestion on the South Circular is to take traffic off A roads and push it back onto residential, speed humped roads? Weird.

Ahh, okay, thank you. It seems a little bid odd to me (I was sitting in a park earlier today that had multiple parties and picnics happening, as well as the usual strollers and runners - is that, in epidemiological terms, much different from funerals at a cemetery?) but it's hardly the worst inconvenience of Covid so not worth me grumbling more ..

"Short of tracking the entire populations movements, there?s no way to differentiate between a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area poorly served by public transport." That's not true - but no-one ever reads the methodology for data gathering and traffic analysis which, shocker, is actually quite developed and very complicated. They just slag off the "data" because they don't like the conclusion or don't understand it.

"Yes but traffic was nowhere near as bad on that section of road prior to the closures being put in.....but you know that already." You're suggesting that traffic was heavy north sound on Lordship Lane between The Plough and the skate park at the Old Harvester because of an east/west closure on Dulwich Village?

Is it normal to close whole cemeteries for a single funeral? I've always thought they were open to the public in daylight. (Gen?ine question).

Yes, traffic in this part of London is terrible, isn't it? Something ought to be done about it.

Do these things not lock up to bike racks/railings, then?

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 12.50 on a Friday. Idling traffic all the way to > the medical > Centre 5pm on a Wednesday, absolutely no traffic on that stretch of the road at all.

Road closures and changes in traffic patterns get fed back very quickly to Waze and Google Maps by their users - not least Uber drivers who have to use one of those two apps and people who leave those apps to work in the background by default.

"Makes you wonder if these surveys are worth the effort and are the truth." Admits to not knowing how the data is produced, says it's useless anyway because he's seen expensive cars in poor neighbourhoods. Why would it ever be worth responding?

"Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs" Well, yeah - Southwark is one of the most densely populated boroughs in London and the UK, and 31% of residents live in poverty. Of course its residents are going to drive less than people in Bromley or Hillingdon: the distances are smaller, there is less road space, there is less room to park, car insurance is expensive, and the traffic is worse. It's all those factors that mean even if there were zero local pollution from vehicles, we would still have to wrestle with congestion.

"If I was a betting man I think the council will end-up having to remove some of the closures" That's not much of a gamble. It would be remarkable if they all stayed. They're temporary and experimental. Some of them will fail - others will become redundant because the short term issue they were responding to has disappeared (eg COVID is over so no social distancing so no need for wider pavements).

"it is a minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise." Tbf you should probably get that exhaust looked at, it is very loud.