DulwichLondoner

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This link supports both rendelharris and > DulwichLondoner - > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cyclists > -make-up-70-of-blackfriars-bridge-traffic-a3409351 > .html so perhaps to a certain extent they are both > right. This article does not contradict a word I have said. I have never said cycle lanes are not used during rush hours. I have said they tend to be almost empty outside of rush hours, while the lanes for motorists are not. The result? More congestion and more pollution for all. Those who think that motorists are evil and should be punished, so anything that adds misery to their evil lives should be applauded, should remember that this means more pollution for all. Not to mention that there isn't always an alternative to the pushbike. If you know of someone who drives to his office job in zone 1, please, please, do introduce him, I'd be curious to meet him (what I mean is that clearly almost no one does). White vans and delivery vans cannot be replaced by pushbikes, however. Also, Blackfriars bridge and the Victoria Embankment are not the best examples, because, AFAIK, they have never had a huge volume of busses. How about Vauxhall Bridge, where the southbound bus lane has been removed? What's the impact there? Or the new cycle path between Marble Arch and Notting Hill Gate? The article does mention that traffic queues on the Embankment now tend to be 15 minutes worse thanks to the cycle lanes. How much more pollution and congestion does that mean? This is all the more serious because the Embankment is almost the only main route from East to West. Motorcycles and cars might try some back routes; for larger vehicles it's harder, if not impossible. Oh, and narrower lanes make it harder, if not impossible, for motorcycles to filter. Again, the result is more congestion and more pollution for all. But no, we should all hail the cycle lanes...

@ rendelharris , I remember articles in the press but I don't expect you to take my word for it. How about the cycling website road.cc talking about http://road.cc/content/news/121876-transport-london-agrees-scrap-stay-back-stickers "LCC, CTC, RoadPeace, London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group, Road Danger Reduction Forum, the Association of Bikeability Schemes and Stop Killing Cyclists were all involved in lobbying TfL" Is this fact enough for you? Should it not be, more evidence is just a few keystrokes away on google. I remember looking up the websites of these organisations for any kind of stay safe tips, and I remember finding no mention whatsoever of even the slightest correlation between staying the **** back from large vehicles and not dying in a very stupid and easily avoidable way. Remember, this is what I do myself as a motorcyclist, so I know what I'm talking about from direct experience. Instead, these organisations find it appropriate to write to TFL that: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jun/12/the-madness-of-stay-back-cyclist-stickers "?implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users?" As for the 'nazi' word, I never meant you are a nazi, nor to generalise that cyclists are. I meant to refer to certain extremists, like the lobbies I have described above, or those who say that any solution which adds misery to the life of motorists is good, which is extremely stupid, if it were only because that means more pollution for all (and let's ignore for a second that not all motorists have alternatives, e.g. delivery vans and white vans). In other conversations (in person, not here) I said that the Motorcycle Action Group are talibans because, if I remember correctly, they were founded to protest against helmets being made compulsory, and celebrate as a hero some guy who served time instead of paying a fine for riding without a helmet. I appreciate some of the work they do (e.g. lobbying TfL on the plight of motorcyclists), but this doesn't mean they weren't extremists wrt helmets. Or I called the Association of British Drivers car-nazis because they say that the car is the most efficient means of transportation and that the congestion charge should be abolished. Again, I appreciate some of the work they do, e.g. challenging the abuses of some local councils, but this doesn't mean they are not extremists when it comes to the congestion charge. I appreciate we live in a world of snowflake sensitivity where everything can be offensive. Maybe I can replace nazi and talibans with 'unreasonable extremists' if you deem this more appropriate, but the concepts remain identical.

Since my choice of words is so objectionable, I'd ask you how you'd define the cycle lobbies that (and it's a fact) have dedicate more time and energy to successfully lobby for those 'motorcyclists and cyclists stay back" stickers to be changed with a wording leas offensive to the poor snowflakes, than to actually educate fellow cyclists of how idiotically suicidal it is not to stay back from a large vehicle. And I say this as a motorcyclist, who didn't find those stickers offensive, and who is still in one piece after many years of riding also because he obeyed that common sense rule.

So this means I will not have the honour of knowing what the source of that piece of information was (about cyclists outnumbering other road users), nor of knowing why it is wise to build v2 of a project without assessing v1. Deafening silence, but I have become used to that. Since you find my

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With regard to DL's explanation > with its accusation that cyclists are somehow a > minority stealing roads from the majority (a > fairly nonsensical statement given that many main > roads in London at rush hour now have a larger > throughput of cyclist than motorists) May I ask what the source of this is? As I have said several times, it is possible that my impressions are wrong and that my experience is unrepresentative. However, it should be TFL that should have monitored the actual usage of cycle lanes. Technology to count bikes is not particularly expensive, I would have thought. Instead, not only did they ignore the concerns of the public transport watchdog that cycle lanes would have had a detrimental effect on busses and other road users, they totally neglected to quantify impact and actual usage of the existing cycle lanes before deciding to build even more. Regardless of your opinion on bikes, surely it is not particularly wise to spend so much in doing version 2 of a project, without bothering assessing the impact and usage of version 1? Or do you think it was wise? If so, do you have a reason why? Other than it fits your 'ideology'? >: does it > never occur to you that the more cyclists there > are on the road, the more room there is on public > transport for those who can't cycle? It's not as simple. How many people fit on a double decker? 80-90? How much road space is occupied by two double deckers vs 180 bicycles? How many bicycles can go through a green light vs how many bikes? What's the impact on the rest of the traffic? How about outside rush hours? Many cycle nazis fail to appreciate that a huge city like London still needs people and goods to be transported on wheels. The pret-a-manger sandwiches for a flashy startup in Shoredicth may be delivered by a zero-emission pushbike; heavy goods can't. The big supermarkets concentrate their deliveries at night, but not everyone can. When I see cycle lanes empty outside rush hours, with the (now anrrower) roads jammed with white vans and delivery vans, my blood starts boiling.

They're not completely empty. Supposedly, they need to be disposed of separately as paint is toxic and polluting.

I have 4 paint tins I'd need to dispose of. I understand I can take them to the council disposal centre near the Old Kent road, but I was wondering if there is a rubbish removal company that would come and collect it, for a fee of course. Does any one know? If there is, do they need to be somehow registered with the council? Is there any way to check? I wouldn't want to pay a stranger to just dump the tins who knows where. The council doesn't collect paint "for health and safety". I'm not sure I understand why it would be a hazard for a council van to drive paint around, but it wouldn't be for local residents to do it with their own car!! I don't have a car, so I'd need to either rent a zip car or go with a minicab. Thanks!

Maybe because lots of initiatives are for the benefit of a small minority of cyclists and to the detriment of a larger number of people? E.g. removing bus lanes to make way for cycle superhighways, which are almost empty outside of rush hour? Maybe because not all cyclists realise that not everyone can or should cycle? What would the reaction be if motorcyclists said: do a CBT (cheap and easy) and get a cheap 125 to commute to work?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DL - if you want to move away from ED then do so, > you don?t need to win an argument about it or need > the Forum?s permission. ?Goddamn it Hotlips, > resign your commission? It's just that people trying to claim that transport links in ED are good and reliable are just like those claiming that they can get from Bromley to Victoria in 10 minutes, or that Peckham is better than South Kensington, or that Wandsworth is the new Chelsea (I'm not making any of this stuff up, these are all phrases that were said to me with a straight face).

rendelharris Wrote: > This - it is over a year I think since you started > your "Anyone else leaving ED because of transport" > thread... 9 months. And it will be even more months before I'll have managed to do it. So what?

I don't doubt that there are other places in SE London with even worse connections, but so what? I bet many of those places are also cheaper than ED. We should be happy waiting half an hour in the freezing cold when they cancel our trains and it takes us over an hour to get from Victoria to Denmark Hill because, oh, the poor people of Nowhere-on-sea have worse connections to central London than us?

I am genuinely not sure if you are being sarcastic, or if you haven't read even half of the posts and the experiences summarised above.

We have decided we have had enough and want to move. It?s a shame, a real shame, because we both used to love the area. The real question is whether we should try to sell and buy at the same time, or sell, rent for a while, and then buy. Depending on what happens to the UK economy and the housing market, renting for a while might end up costing the same or less. Or not ? where is a crystal ball when you need one?

Today there is "major disruption between East Croydon and Brighton till at least 4pm", which affects all those going to Gatwick, too. Yesterday the whole family was meant to go home from London Bridge around 9pm; our train was cancelled, but luckily we realised in time and stayed indoors waiting for the next train. Had we had to wait almost half an hour in the freezing cold with the little one, it wouldn't have been pleasant. Two days ago I was near Bond street around 9pm and wanted to take the Jubilee to London bridge, then the train to ED. I checked train times before taking the tube; my train got cancelled, so I decided to take the bus from Marble Arch to Victoria, then the train to Denmark Hill. Just sayin'...

London becoming more populated explains overcrowding on public transport. It does not explain leaves on the tracks and other laughable excuses; again: how does the rest of the world handle leaves? It does not explain having 1 train per hour for two consecutive summers. It does not explain all the cancellation and delays. In short, it explains almost nothing about the poor service others and I have been complaining about. While on one hand it is obvious that areas with more frequent trains, e.g. Balham, will be less affected than Dulwich, purely because you never have to wait as long for the next train, I also have the feeling that the Dulwich line is one that Southern has decided it can and will sacrifice when things get tough. For example, the Southern trains from Streatham Hill into Victoria are not more frequent than from Dulwich to London Bridge, yet, if I remember correctly, Streatham residents have never had to endure the same kind of misery we in Dulwcih did.

Getting honest feedback from people who have bought a property in an area is always difficult, if not impossible, because a very large % of these people will typically be all too keen in convincing themselves and you (but mostly themselves) that wherever they have bought is the best place on Earth. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told ridiculous bull**** like: I can get from Bromley to Victoria in 10 minutes. No, you can't. Unless you have your own helicopter. I used to live in South Ken, but, trust me, Peckham is better. Ah, so the fact that you can no longer afford to rent, let alone, buy, north of the river, is a mere irrelevant coincidence? Etc. etc etc. Now, I am not saying I want to get the hell out of here because there is no tube. I knew there was no tube when I moved here. What I didn't know is that the existing services could ever become so incredibly poor. And, btw, what is so terrible about Balham? The high streets seem quite comparable. Organic butcher? Check. Cinema? Check? Fishmonger? Check (the very same one, in fact). Baby clothes shop? Check (the very same one, in fact: Jojo maman). Franco Manca? Check. Bluebird bakery? Check. It's not like we are comparing a middle class neighbourhood with Mayfair, or a more hipster area with a more family-friendly one. I think parks in Dulwich are nicer, but toddlers don't care - they just want somewhere to run and play - and, tbh, slightly less nice parks is a low price to pay to get reliable connections. Finally, NIMBYs are one of the main obstacles to progress in this country. The argument against the tube in Dulwich is the same one that was used against the railways a few centuries ago. We don't want those horrible modern contraptions spoiling the unique character of our beautiful countryside! Etc. etc. etc.

All I am aware of is that for 2 summers in a row we had one train per hour during the morning commute. Something that happens for two consecutive summers cannot be dismissed as an unrepresentative one-off, especially because, AFAIK, unless I missed it, the unions and the rail bosses haven?t exactly shaken hands on an ironclad agreement that will ensure this won?t happen again. Perspective? OK: to put things in perspective, the distance from Victoria to Denmark Hill is only 3 miles. I am not aware of many other cities in the civilised world where a 3-mile train journey can take over an hour. Are you? **** can and does happen anywhere, but the frequency with which it happens on the Southern and Southeastern lines beggars belief. I am not talking about the inconvenience of a 10-minute delay every now and then; I?m talking about the utter chaos in my professional and private life caused by delays which can be, and have in fact been, of anything between 30 and 90 minutes. I am not talking about having a few more trains to reduce my commute by a few minutes ? I am saying that I?d like to reduce the chance of being an hour late. Is this so unreasonable, considering Dulwich is only zone 2, and considering how ridiculously expensive public transport is in this country? Free to think I am exaggerating, of course, but I have been in situations where I had to reschedule important meetings at work because of substantial train delays (which has reflected incredibly poorly on me), and where we were very late in picking up our child from the nursery ? which can be a trauma for a toddler. I know of people who live on the Brighton line who have more than once spent the night in hotels in London if had have crucial and critical meetings the next day ? such is the extent Southern Fail cannot be trusted. When I moved to Dulwich I thought that the less frequent transport links were a decent price to pay because the area was nice and property was substantially cheaper than other South London areas with better links. This no longer holds. I have now come to the conclusion that I want to live somewhere with frequent transport because, if there is one train every 3-6 minutes, then the amount of chaos is limited, because, even when something happens, you won?t be one hour late. This is what people living on the Balham line to Victoria have been telling me, for example: they have been affected by the Southern chaos, too, but they have never had to wait an hour, because trains to Victoria run every 5 minutes or so ? you could cancel half the train on that line and still have a better service than on ours! To each his own, of course. Needs and preferences vary greatly from person to person. But saying that transport links are OK in the area is, honestly, quite ridiculous!

When, in March, I asked if anyone else was considering fleeing East Dulwich because of how incredibly poorer transport links have become over the last 2 years, http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1797543,page=1 a few people replied the situation had got better, it?s no longer an issue, the argument doesn?t hold much water, etc. Then we had the 2nd summer in a row with only 1 train per hour, during the morning commute, from ED to London Bridge. I used to think that the Southeastern service from Denmark Hill to Victoria was the only lifeline we had left in the area, but that seems to have become incredibly miserable, too. I have lost count of the number of times I have been late for no apparent reason; and no, leaving earlier is not an option, when you have a child to drop off at school/nursery. It?s got to the point that I no longer believe any of the announcements they make. Passenger ill on a train? How can there be so many so often? And how long does it take to get one ill passenger off a train? Surely the train doesn?t have to wait for the ambulance to arrive, or does it? Trespassers on the line? Again: how many can there reasonably be? How credible is it that there so many, so often? Broken down train? Signalling failures? Leaves on the track? Slippery tracks? Recently I ended up in Lewisham because Southeastern had decided to cancel the first stops, so the train passed through Denmark Hill without stopping. If they made an announcement, I, and many others, missed it. A few other times my train was cancelled, and the next one, after 30 minutes, was 20 minutes late. Walking from Victoria to Denmark Hill would have been faster! What beggars belief is: how on Earth does the rest of the civilised world do it? I have met people from Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Zurich, Milan, Paris, who all tell me that this level of disservice would cause a popular revolution in their countries. I can understand London being unprepared for snow, because it?s a rare event, but how does the rest of the world handle leaves on the tracks and all the other ****? I have now officially given up on East Dulwich and am trying to move to South West London. It?s a shame because I really like Dulwich, but I cannot pay zone 2 prices to have zone 20 transport links. The only good thing is that house prices do not reflect how poorer transport links have become; it?s a tough real estate market in London at the moment, but it doesn?t seem to be any tougher in ED because of poor transport.

Thanks. It's a Yamaha Tracer 700. I'd need to ask my mate if he feels comfortable sharing the reg plate. If I had to bet, I'd say whoever did this explored the area a few times to identify which bikes they wanted to steal, and probably loaded a few in a van. Chances are the bike has already been taken apart.

As per the title. Not mine, but a mate's. Near Forest hill road. It was chained to a lamppost with a biggish chain that was cut, most likely with some kind of portable angle grinder. AFAIK those things really cut through anything, even the heavier Almax and Pragmasis chains I generally advocate. Not much that can be done to prevent cases like this, I'm afraid. A GPS tracker, maybe. An alarm (to wake you up - I wouldn't count on the neighbours too much). I wouldn't have both tracker and alarm on the bike because of the drain on the battery; maybe one of those alarmed disc locks or chains, but the sound is all too easy to muffle. Bastards! Maybe they'll get caught if they steal some other bike with a tracker; it has happened in the past - a bike with tracker leading the police to recover many more

Caesi01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/notorious-mo > ped-gang-who-targeted-100-victims-in-16day-rampage > -across-the-capital-jailed-for-18-a3656436.html "A former special constable chased after the mopeds in his Maserati" Former special constables can afford Maseratis???

Agree it's not just pedestrians, that goes without saying. Even my "category" (motorcyclists) is full of dangerous idiots. But, see, the behaviour Mrs H witnessed is the typical behaviour I struggle to believe is in any way impacted by 20mph limits; I very much doubt those geniuses would have behaved differently if the limit had been 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever.

Feb 2017 factsheet: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf page 13 of 17: Although a high proportion of urban roads are suitable for 20mph 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. ------------------------------------------- You might say that the whole of London, or at least all of zone 1 and most of zone 2, might fall under the above definition, even those roads which are major through routes. ROSPA does not elaborate on this so we don't know what their opinion on this is. I suppose it comes down to the balance between residential and major through routes. For example, forbidding parking on major through routes (which is already the case in most such major through routes) is probably more helpful in reducing risk to pedestrians, because they cannot jump in the middle of the road from behind a car or van which was hiding them from sight (i.e. they are way more visible). A practical example is Lordship lane, betwen the goose green roundabout and the cinema. Forbid parking and you make that stretch of road way safer because cars and pedestrians will be more visible to each other. But residents and shopkeepers would probably rise up in arms. None of this would be necessary if people crossed the road sensibly, but good luck with that!

JohnL Wrote: > If someone is speeding (going more than the speed > limit) down that road and hits someone, the law > won't say the boy didn't look, they'll throw the > book at the driver. Are you sure? I suppose it depends on case law. If a driver goes at 25 mph in a 20 mph zone and hits a pedestrian who did something appallingly stupid (e.g. jumping in the middle of the road from behind a van without looking), common sense would suggest both the drivers and the pedestrian should be at fault. After all, pedestrians can cross when it?s safe to do so ? they do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to Darwinianly select themselves out of the gene pool by involving other people in easily preventable accidents. But law and common sense don?t always go hand in hand; plus I?m not a judge, so my opinion is irrelevant! My desire to avoid these situations is precisely the reason why I ride defensively, i.e. assuming there are only two categories of road users: those who want to kill themselves and those who want to kill me, too. It sounds cocky, but anyone who has ever ridden a motorcycle in a big city would understand. Jokes aside, when driving/riding you should always assume that what is hidden from sight is a potential danger. You can?t rely on other people being sensible, even when it?s their own life that?s at stake. Incidentally, one of the reasons why I am against 20mph limits introduced in the entire area of a borough is because it creates a further incentive for people to cross when and where they shouldn?t, rather than going through the hassle of walking 30 yards to the next traffic light and waiting 20 seconds for the green man. Btw, note that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is against introducing 20mph limits in an entire borough, and especially on major A roads.

The next iphones should have a sensor that automatically turns the screen black and lowers the volume of the music when a user approaches a road crossing! I commute in London by motorcycle. I often daydream about having a device which does just this to all the mobiles in a half-mile radius ? oh, how much safer my rides would be! Motorcycles are more exposed to stupid behaviour than cars because they can ? legally ? filter. The Denmark Hill bus stop is a particularly dangerous spot, because people are always crossing the road away from the traffic light and with their heads buried into a smartphone screen, and don?t realise that busses and vans hide them from the sight of oncoming vehicles.