DulwichLondoner

I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the chap was not there any more). Has any one seen what happened? Did the truck driver swerve to the left without signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him while he was turning? Other than signalling in advance, I don't really know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid cyclists!

Is it true that the Penge East - West Dulwich - Victoria service will be reduced in the coming years, or is it just a rumour? As for pollution, is there any assessment / estimate of the contribution of vehicles vs other sources? For example, some foreign cities have strict limitations on winter heating (indoor temperature shouldn't be above certain thresholds). This is impossible to police in private houses, but not impossible to enforce in stores and offices.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You stick with your mindset old chap, as I said, > I'm out. I understand; it is, after all, the most logical step to take if you cannot answer very specific and detailed questions. By all means, carry on with your views unchallenged - after all facts and details have a nasty habit of interfering with ideology. > ETA: "When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL?" > > Here: > > "Has TFL counted how used they are throughout the > day, how motorised traffic has changed, etc? If > they have, they have kept the results well > hidden." ??? Again, putting words in my mouth seems to be your favourite sport. I was complaining that TFL does not publish this data. I never said I knew for a fact it collected it, but kept it hidden! What I meant is that I looked for it on its website and in its annual reports, and I didn't manage to find anything.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very interesting article for those who say there's > no point trying to limit private car use when > we've got buses, HGVs etc: modern diesel cars > produce twice as much toxic pollution as HGVs Just out of curiosity, who says there is no point? To be clear, I said something very different: that driving into central London is such an expensive and miserable experience that I struggle to believe many people who have an alternative willingly choose to drive. How many people do you know who commute to zone 1 by car? I think it would probably make more sense to limit the number of minicabs and to disincentive vans and delivery vehicles, eg charging them more to enter the congestion charge zone before 9am and after 4pm. Of course I cannot be 100% sure; mine are impressions based on my experience and a bit of common sense. The first step in tackling London's traffic would of course be understanding what it is made up of: what kind of vehicles at what times etc. I don't have hard data because it is not my job to collect them; I did search TFL's reports but couldn't find much on this. I do, however, find it wrong and inexcusable that: 1) TFL does not collect or publish this data 2) That major revolutions to transport, like the segregated cycle lanes, were carried out before collecting and studying this data 3) That more and more money is being spent on more cycle lanes without a proper study of the impact of the existing ones

TFL's website has quite a lot of data on collisions, injuries and deaths: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/road-safety There are tables for how many people get hurt in each category (pedestrian, car drivers, etc), but I haven't found data showing which kind of vehicles are involved (e.g. in a collision between a big truck and a Smart I'd expect the truck driver to walk away unhurt). Like I said earlier, I'd be interested in understanding if there is data on traffic volumes by vehicle type in central London and/or in the congestion zone, and specifically if there is any data on minicabs and cars excluding minicabs (I do wonder if we have too many in London).

@Willard, first of all let it be clear I have no interest in convincing anyone. I describe what I think and why, but we all have different needs priorities opinions etc. I find a GPS tracker more important than an alarm. I use my bike almost every day, but would leave it unused for a couple of weeks in the summer and during Christmas. My bike has a 12Ah battery; when the battery is new, the bike starts just fine after 2 weeks idle, but when the battery is not new, the bike struggles after 2 weeks. I am therefore reluctant to add additional strain to the battery. I would not replace my tracker with an alarm because I find the tracker more effective; in a residential area like Dulwich you might hope neighbours might, maybe, be alerted by an alarm, but in central London no one gives a damn. This is my 2 cents.

@Willard, all it takes to muffle the alarm in a disc lock or padlock is to cover it with a towel - especially covering the tiny holes where the sound comes from; no specific kit required. Alarms installed on a bike are not as easy to muffle, of course. I don't like them because they drain the battery and can interfere with the electronics of the bike, but we all have our preferences. Of course anything can be cut; at the end of the day, nothing can resist a portable angle grinder (noisy) or some hydraulic bolt cutters (way less noisy). Btw, neither tool is particularly expensive nor hard to source. Last December, two distinguished gentlemen were filmed and chased away while trying to steal a Ducati in Soho square, in broad daylight, using a portable angle grinder. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-heroic-bystanders-halt-thieves-bid-to-steal-40k-ducati-superbike-in-broad-daylight-in-soho-a3414021.html Oh, and the policy not to pursue such gentlemen, especially if they remove their helmets, does not help much: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32904622

@Rendelharris, it seems putting words in my mouth is your favourite pastime. When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL? When did I say that, if TFL had done a study, it would support my views? Quite simply, my opinion is that those who propose to spend squillions of public money, causing huge disruptions and inconvenience for a significant part of the population (e.g. bus users, not those nasty car drivers), should present as much data and evidence as possible to substantiate their case. AFAIK no such thing was done with respect to the cycle superhighways. Again, it is not a coincidence that the Transport Watchdog raised the same concerns I raised with respect to the negative impact on busses. Similarly, after squillions of public money have been spent, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to monitor the actual effects, before deciding to do the same all over the city. Do you disagree? If so, may I ask why? I do not have all the hard data because: 1) some of it is simply impossible to measure, but can still be estimated with a bit of common sense. It is not feasible to stop every motorist asking them: "what is the purpose of your trip today? What alternative means of transportation have you considered? Etc". However, it is simply common sense to understand that not many people can be willing to pay ? 11.50 congestion charge + the exorbitant parking fees of central London to drive into central London. 2) It is not my job to collect and provide data. The number of vehicles entering and exiting the congestion charge is something TFL should monitor, precisely and not with estimates. It is their job, not mine. I asked if/how/why the studies you mentioned are relevant to London. You have not answered that. One of the first pages that comes up from your link relates to Los Angeles freeways, for example - an entirely different planet. The congestion charge and the fees to park in central London are so expensive that, even if the roads were totally empty, most people would probably still not choose to drive into central London, and rightly so. Let me be clearer: does any of your studies relate to a big metropolis, with huge deterrents against driving in the centre like congestion charge and very expensive parking? Not to mention that those 'studies' certainly say nothing about the merit of removing dedicated bus lanes! You say that nothing will change my mind. Wrong. Like I wrote very clearly (but you love putting words in my mouth, don't you?), if actual facts showed that cycle lanes are used throughout the day and the year, that the people negatively affected are only a minority, that bus journey times have not changed materially, etc., then I will change my mind.

You are right, I think public transport should come first. Removing bus lanes to make way for cycle lanes means it does not. I never said motorised traffic should then come before bicycles - again, you are putting words in my mouth. The point is that no policy can benefit everyone: there will always be winners and losers. Who shall be the winners should be determined by a thorough and detailed cost-benefit analysis; I have most certainly not seen anything of the kind with respect to the cycle lanes. Is it a coincidence that the transport watchdog raised the very same concerns I did on how cycle lanes would increase journey times for bus users? Also, has there been any assessment of the ex-post impact of the cycle lanes? Has TFL counted how used they are throughout the day, how motorised traffic has changed, etc? If they have, they have kept the results well hidden. Now, if FACTS (facts, not ideology) showed that cycle lanes are used throughout the day and negatively affect only a minority of users, then I'd be all in favour of them. Are you aware of FACTS showing as much? I am most certainly not. You ask why bicycles should not get any of the lanes on Vauxhall bridge; well, the fact that those lanes are almost totally empty outside of peak hours is a very good reason! At the very least TFL could have come up with bicycle lanes in operation only, say, between 7-9am , and 5-7pm, leaving that space as a bus lane for the rest of the day. Your argument that non-utilisation of cycle lanes outside peak times is redundant is ludicrously preposterous. You cannot compare that with running a half-empty train off-peak, because who is inconvenienced by the running of that train? By contrast, a non-utilised cycle lane does inconvenience quite substantially all the other road users. Now, if all the road users were nasty car users who have the option of excellent public transport, but instead choose to go through the misery of driving their own cars, then, by all means, let's penalise them as much as possible and do whatever is in our power to get them off the road. But, like I said, driving through London is such an expensive and miserable experience already that I would struggle to believe that the few who do really have much better alternatives. You talk about drivers who have chosen to bring their vehicles. Again, I am not so sure there are that many drivers who make this choice - I believe quite a few vehicles have little choice. You talk about encouraging night time deliveries. How exactly would that work? Most big stores already do it, but what is feasible for a big Tesco is not feasible for a smaller shop. Should smaller shop have night shifts just to wait for the deliveries? Come on... The fact that 2% of roads in central London have cycle lanes is utterly misleading. The % of the total roads is totally irrelevant; what matters is the % of the main roads which are actually used to travel through the city, not the % of tiny back roads which are either unfeasible or simply impossible (because many rat runs have been blocked by councils who gave in to the overly vocal NIMBY crowd) to use to get round London. Yes, I believe cycle madness (yes, my words) has made the already bad problem of London congestion worse. No, I do not believe congestion was either created by bicycles, nor non-existent before the cycle lanes - these are words YOU put in my mouth. You say that studies have shown extra capacity gets taken up. May I ask what studies they are, and if/how they are relevant to London? I don't think it takes many studies to understand that, if there are additional lanes on a road, then journey times are likely to become shorter.

I suppose I'll have to install a GoPro if you don't believe me... Removing bus lanes, as was done from Oval to Vauxhall and on Vauxhall bridge going South, causes busses to get stuck in traffic. Would you by any chance dispute this? Or do you find it is OK, as long as a small minority of bicycle advocates gets its way? Please do not twist my words. Where did I say there were no traffic jams before the cycle lanes? Quite banally, cycle lanes have worsened an already bad situation. Yes, there are many motorised vehicles. Too many? I don't know.I often wonder if London has too many minicabs, and if the congestion charge couldn't be changed to incentivise trucks and vans to enter after, say, 9am. Apart from these points, well, to keep a big city like London running you still need lots of vehicles if only to transport goods all over the capital. Bicycles can be used to deliver your takeaway, not to deliver heavy goods - you still need a fleet of big nasty ugly vans and trucks for that. Congestion charge and parking are already so expensive in central London, and rightly so, that I don't think many people commute to zone 1 by car. I often hear the argument that a bicycle takes so much less space than a car and doesn't pollute, that it's good to incentivise people to cycle rather than drive, but how many people used to drive to central London anyway? How many cyclists used to be car drivers driving to zone 1 and paying congestion charging and car park? By contrast, a double-decker bus has capacity for circa 85 people. How much more space than a double-decker do 85 bicycles occupy? Also, aren't they building a segregated cycle lane on the Embankment near Chelsea right now? I don't honestly remember what the Embankment looked like before all this cycle madness, but aren't two cycle lanes (one per direction) roughly the same width as a car lane? After all, on Vauxhall bridge they created two cycle lanes (one per direction) by removing a bus lane.

About cycle lanes: today I was riding on my motorcycle around 2pm. Between Oval and Vauxhall, there was a traffic jam, with busses stuck in traffic, yet I only counted two bicycles in the bicycle lane which was created removing the bus lane. On Vauxhall bridge I counted six bicycles (in both directions), yet busses were stuck in traffic because bicycle lanes were created removing the North to South bus lane. On the Embankment between Vauxhall and Chelsea I counted five bicycles in the cycle lane (+ 1 cycling on the pavement), yet the rest of the road was very congested. Bicycle lanes are almost empty outside of rush hours, yet the rest of the road is not. Favouring a small minority of cyclists during rush hours causes great inconvenience for everyone else, including outside rush hour when there are no bicycles around, and including public transport users.

Do these families end up as despised social pariahs, or not really because so many do it? I mean the families who sell, rent close to a school for a little while, then buy elsewhere, therefore respecting the letter, although arguably not spirit, of the rules.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm intrigued as to what constitutes as "rat run". > Is it simply traffic travelling on roads where > people don't want it? Very well said! One could argue that, I don't know, Tintagel Crescent, where the entrance to Goose Green Primary is, is not a main road because it is a short, narrow crescent, but Camberwell Grove, however unsuitable for heavy vehicles, is a straight 0.6-mile stretch of road which, once/if they fix the bridge, would be perfectly suitable for car traffic. Also, why are motorcycles not allowed? Methinks it's because residents don't want to be bothered by the noise. I struggle to think it's about safety, because scooters and motorcycles can weigh roughly from 100 to 300 Kg, meaning that a motorcyclist on a motorcycle can weigh like 2 to 4 average adults. If the bridge is safe for 4 adult pedestrians to cross, surely it is safe for a motorcyclist weighing the same? Or am I missing something? James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WOuldn't it be fab if > that traffic didn't use such residential roads as > cut -throughs/rat-runs but stuck to the actual > main roads. And indeed vice versa when Southwark > residents drive across other boroughs. As above! Who makes this determination? The Not-In-My-Backyard mob who don't want to be troubled by plebs going through their beloved road? If you simply look at a map, Camberwell grove stands out as a rather obvious North-South artery. We have to be very careful with direct democracy because the interests of the NIMBY mob are often radically different from those of the wider community. About 18 months ago Lambeth council closed a number of roads around Calais street, because residents didn't want their precious roads used by ordinary mortals, but luckily the backlash was so intense they had to cancel the whole scheme. If you approach Calais street from Denmark road you still see a red sign that Calais street is closed to traffic, which is luckily no longer true. Yet the sign is still there. Mmm...

The religious criterion for state schools is even worse, because religious state schools are funded by everyone's taxes, including those of atheists, agnostics, and people who simply follow another religion.

Yes, agree. Wasn't there a big row a few years ago because the Charter in North Dulwich used 'safe walking routes' which oh-what-a-coincidence just so happened to exclude a couple of big council estates?

Well, families who are rich enough can always afford to sell their place, rent near a good school for a while, then move out. As long as they only have one property at any given time then I don't think there is anything that can be done. What can be done, and what many schools and councils do ( like those in Wandsorth, Camden and Merton ) is to not accept applications from families who have moved but still own a property they had previously lived in; in these cases the presumption is that the family will move back to the old house after little Johnny gets a place at the school, so applications tend to be processed with the old address, not the new one. I am not sure if any school in Southwark follows this approach but it seems sensible. You might have also heard about the recent change in the sibling policy in Wandsworth: now siblings get in via the sibling route only if the family still lives in the same address as the one used when the first child was offered a place, or if they moved less than 800 metres away. Arguably this is unfair on families who genuinely rent and who may have been kicked out by greedy landlords, but at the same time I understand the number of families who had moved out but still sent siblings to local schools was so great that the maximum distance in many schools shrank to 200 metres or so.

Could you please elaborate a bit on this point? I am not very familiar with the new curriculum (introduced when? For all schools?) nor with the differences between 'ordinary' state schools, free schools, academies, etc. , but I am very interested in the topic.

Ofsted has just (8-Mar-2017) published the report of its recent inspection of Goose Green Primary: https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/138842 The school was found to 'require improvement' in all metrics. I'd like to ask for the opinions of those who are familiar with the school, who have children there, who applied or considered applying. We'll be applying for primary school places in about 18 months. I understand the school will be reviewed by Ofsted again in about 24 months, but by that time we will have applied already. I couldn't find previous reports on the Ofsted website. Maybe because the school converted to academy? However, I found some just by googling: It was found 'good' in 2012: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqndeCyerSAhXKDJAKHUhzCLcQFggmMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Freports.ofsted.gov.uk%2Fprovider%2Ffiles%2F2027135%2Furn%2F132022.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGUWW7eNzN4jt5uOyA54tJwgRUBxw&sig2=emuqjnZlWOuUMkbwMCanoQ&bvm=bv.150120842,d.d2s and satisfactory in 2010: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqndeCyerSAhXKDJAKHUhzCLcQFgggMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.goosegreenprimaryschool.org%2Fviewer%3Furl%3D%2Ffiles%2Fschool-information%2Fofsted-report-june-2010.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEaC81XIlx3vzbnfdyfPQ5MNxFx4Q&sig2=dgb5kP32SLV6dtSXPAYz6Q I think test results tend to reflect the families' socio-economic background as much as, if not more than, teachers' abilities, but this report seems quite, well, damning on a number of fronts. Goose Green is the closest school for us, but with a bit of luck we might be able to apply to others. Bessemer Grange, Dog Kennel Hill and Belham seem better, according to Ofsted and to hearsay - acquaintances with children there. The Belham off Bellenden road and the new Harris on Lordship Lane are very new, have not been inspected yet, nor do I know any one with children there. Thoughts? Thanks!

Mmm, but there are also those who say that so-called barefoot (ie minimalist) shoes contribute to a number of injuries. I don't really know. It might be interesting to run a pubmed (ie search the archive of scientific publications). The doctor in the link you mentioned says that there are no studies substantiating why kids should avoid minimalist shoes, but he doesn't present much evidence to the contrary, either, other than reporting his own experience with his own children - a slightly small and unrepresentative statistical sample.

PS I have just remembered there is also another store on Lordship Lane, next to the Post Office

Thank you!

Well, we are also in a country in which the police don't chase suspects riding away on motorcycles/scooters and without helmets, because if the distinguished gentlemen were to injure themselves, it might be the police's fault. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32904622 However, I think it's important not to end up with American trigger-happy hysteria; it is a fact that harsher penalties, pro-gun laws etc have not made the US safer - quite possibly the contrary. Have you ever noticed the kind of locks and doors most households have in continental Europe? Ours are a sad joke by comparison. I remember enquiring about security steel doors, and the only ones I could find where those by an Italian brand with a reseller in Kensington: http://www.kensingtonsecuritydoorsandwindows.co.uk/about-us/ Banham stuff is ridiculous, by comparison! In the end I decided against it because it seemed silly to spend thousands of pounds on a front door, while it was uber-easy to gain access to my balcony with just a stair from the street, so I installed an ADT alarm with big ADT shields by the balconies as deterrent. Installing security doors and windows is possible but costs a fortune. These doors probably make more sense if you are in a flat which cannot be easily accessed from the street (e.g. third floor or higher).

Depending on where you end up, you might also want to consider cycling to an overground station (Denmark Hill or Peckham Rye), especially after the SouthernFail shambles. As for state co-ed primaries, there are actually quite a few options around East Dulwich and Peckahm Rye: Bessemer Grange, Goose Green, Dog Kennel Hill, the new Harris on Lordship Lane, Belham and Bellenden closer to Peckham Rye... In fact, state schools are one of the main reasons why I stayed in East Dulwich, rathern than moving somewhere else with better transport links. Schools here are not as oversubscribed as those in, say, Wandsworth.

You're right - I was imprecise. I do note, however, that Southwark seems less harsh than Merton and Wandsorth even for those admission policies it controls directly, e.g. most state primaries.

Now that the shop on Lordship lane is closed? I think there once was a store near the Village - is it still there? Or other alternatives not too far away?