hpsaucey

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hpsaucey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Throwing this into the congestion mix - car > super > > size me and road space attached. > > > Don't you have a couple of cars? No - no cars or other motorised vehicle. You? HP

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that getting back on topic, the point > originally raised in terms of whether there is > space for cycling and cars on our roads and how > the 'sharing the space' is going has been > significantly impacted by the growth in vehicle > size. Whew - yes!

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's true. That's why they call them Chelsea > tractors. So = are you saying they're the choice of Dulwich aspiring-Chelsea wannabes? ... local variations in favourite car types here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chelsea-tractors-range-rover-really-is-the-most-popular-car-in-kensington-and-chelsea-a3626056.html And a lovely definition of Chelsea tractor here: 'https://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/chelsea-tractor.html' Not something everyone would want to be associated with I'd have thought.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those extra 28cm comprise crumple zones to protect > pedestrians/cyclists in the event of a collision. > You can't really be advocating for cars to go back > to 1960s safety measures (and thus dimensions)? Nope - I'm really not. The two posts above this have got it... HP

Here! She's so lovely as are the shoes. https://emmanuellemarshall.com/ HP

Throwing this into the congestion mix - car super size me and road space attached.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HP, I think it is to do with sound. The idea is > that the trees, on a few sides, act as a sound > barrier. Ah - thanks first mate. HP

Quick question - is there a reason why it's in the park rather than the much larger (and further away from houses and wildlife) common? HP

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boomers getting comments they don't like deleted- > nice. > > We're pretty much more Gen X on average on this > forum. And only 34 days till the start of term... Gen X and proud (although my kids call me boomer).

funnylookingowl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boomers getting comments they don't like deleted- > nice. I think they got upset because so many > people disagreed with them. I'd have thought your comment was deleted because it was toxic!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Strangely, a lot of them seem to have animal based > names! > > Not always an accurate pointer... 👍

funnylookingowl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > hpsaucey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The Elusive Shadow Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > No point arguing on here, let the moaners > > moan. > > > If it wasnt this festival, it would be > > something > > > else to moan about this weekend then onto the > > > next > > > thing next week." > > > > > > Would it? I've been following this thread and > > > really wonder where's people's empathy for > > others > > > has gone. 'Moaning' and struggling with the > > noise > > > impact are two very different things. It's > > evident > > > from this year and others that the sound from > > Gala > > > carries in strange ways; also that people's > > > personal noise tolerances also vary for many > > > reasons. > > > > > > HP > > > > Quite. I would love to see where I show a track > > record of moaning about stuff every weekend. > The > > truth is I don't. I expect there to be one day > > events and house parties etc, at various times > of > > the year. So I really fail to understand how > > anyone can not see the difference between that, > > and 30 hours of very loud music across three > > consecutive days, one of which is a working > > weekday for most who work. There was no warning > of > > an extra day, none whatsoever. > > > Your username is very apt- every post of yours is > just 'blah blah blah, moan moan moan' are you not > getting enough attention and/or nookie at home > from the wife/husband or something? Something is > wrong with you, and its not merely a bit of faint, > distant noise from a music festival apparently > disturbing your precious peace and quiet. funnylookingowl - you're either trolling or just being plain obnoxious. Nasty stuff!

Thanks for posting hellosailor. HP

The Elusive Shadow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No point arguing on here, let the moaners moan. If it wasnt this festival, it would be something else to moan about this weekend then onto the next thing next week." Would it? I've been following this thread and really wonder where's people's empathy for others has gone. 'Moaning' and struggling with the noise impact are two very different things. It's evident from this year and others that the sound from Gala carries in strange ways; also that people's personal noise tolerances also vary for many reasons. HP

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure that even the most pro-LTN people are > suggesting that LTNs are THE answer. They're not, > they are ONE OF a suite of measures to reduce > traffic. Some complementary - it's quite difficult > to do X without doing Y in some areas of traffic > design, some can be standalone and there's an > element of needing stick and carrot as well. > > > So unless you're planning on making the whole of > London a massive LTN then there will always be > winners and losers and that is not at all > equitable. > > Is it equitable that the roads are too dangerous > for kids to ride to school? > Is it equitable that people who do not own cars > find it difficult getting public transport because > it's held up by private cars taking up > proportionately vastly more road space than any > other for of transit? > Is it equitable that car owners get massively > subsidised public space to leave their vehicles - > space that then cannot be used for any other > user? > Is it equitable that car owners (in spite of the > "I pay road tax, I pay fuel duty" argument) are > vastly subsidised by the public purse - some of > that subsidy in the form of addressing > pollution-related issues? > > LTNs, broadly speaking, work pretty well and > they're a cheap and easy thing to implement at > short notice - they can also be cheaply and easily > modified or removed at short notice. There's > nothing special about Dulwich in terms of LTNs or > traffic, the principles are exactly the same as > anywhere else - you have to remove as much of the > traffic as possible, you have to enable and > empower active travel. If you don't remove the > traffic, you can't push active travel unless > you're also putting in segregated bike lanes > because, much as there will always be a few folk > who can tolerate riding in traffic, most people > can't or won't. And a comprehensive network of > bike lanes takes years to put in and also attracts > just as much vitriol as LTNs. > > Same with all the other nice ideas like trams, > extending the Tube line, changing every car to > electric, autonomous cars... It's all stuff that > won't happen before 2040, if at all. Extending the > Santander Cycles scheme - that might come by about > 2025 or so with a bit of luck. > > Pollution on a lot of London's roads has been > above legal limits for years and you don't lower > it by "spreading it around a bit". If you removed > every LTN in the area tomorrow, the air pollution > on EDG would still be above legal limits because > it was well before the introduction of LTNs. > Hardly "clean air for all". > You can't start bleating about woodburners or > buildings being worse - maybe they are in terms of > air pollution but equally no-one has ever been run > over by a speeding woodburner, nor is there a > queue of them outside my house in the morning rush > hour. > > You can argue semantics about cars being fine but > PHVs and vans being not fine (?) but it's still > splitting hairs. You just need less traffic. That > addresses air and noise pollution, road danger and > congestion all at once. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Signed. HP

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, now fottos has reminded us of the central > position China has as the world's prime polluter, > is it not fairly important to find out to what > extent Southwark and its pet contractors use China > to source materials? > > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wasn't Southwark Council buying a lot of its > > paving from China? > > > > fottos Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Sure, we can all do our bit to reduce carbon > > > emissions. So let's start by reducing imports > > of > > > Chinese made goods. China is by far the > biggest > > > producer of CO2 and they are doing nothing > > about > > > reducing CO2 levels. They build one massive > > new > > > coal powered power station every 10 days. > > China's > > > strategy has resulted in destruction of > swathes > > of > > > production capacity here in the UK - > partially > > due > > > to their use of cheap polluting power > > generation. > > > The UK cannot compete because of the high > cost > > of > > > electricity here and other restrictions > related > > to > > > CO2 reduction. > > > > > > The world's biggest CO2 producers... > > > China (28%) > > > Rest of the World (21%) > > > United States (15%) > > > India (7%) > > > Russia (5%) > > > Japan (3%) > > > Germany (2%) > > > Iran (2%) > > > South Korea (2%) > > > Saudi Arabia (2%) > > > Indonesia (2%) > > > Canada (2%) > > > Mexico (1%) > > > South Africa (1%) > > > Brazil (1%) > > > Turkey (1%) > > > Australia (1%) > > > United Kingdom (1%) > > > Poland (1%) > > > Italy (1%) > > > France (1%) > > > > > > Here in the UK we our meagre 1% output and > > being > > > made to meet all manner targets by means of > > many > > > ill-thought out plans - such as heat pumps > > which > > > grossly inefficient and impractical in a city > > > environment. firstmate - that would make for a great FOI. HP

For anyone interested - on now but also recorded: https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/climate-talks/climate-talks-tony-blair-conversation-john-kerry

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's not forget, the number one reason that local > government would like to reduce private car travel > is to reduce localised pollution to improve the > quality of the air we all breathe. > Climate change is obviously a factor too, but the > driver (scuse the pun) is air quality in our > neighbourhood(s) > > This is from TFL: > Air quality myth #2 > Myth: Road vehicles aren't the main cause of > London's air pollution > > FACT: Driving polluting vehicles is the single > biggest cause, contributing to around half of the > air pollution in > London > https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/air-quality > > > > So I would respectfully suggest that arguments > about gas boilers and coal fired power stations in > China are red herrings when it comes to this > debate. Important topics though they may be in > their own right. Re: gas boilers: hence legalalien's suggestion/offer of a new thread ... HP

I've only just seen this - so apologies if everyone's already aware. You can sign up for email notifications about Southwark's Climate emergency response here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency?chapter=5 HP

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the boiler issue I think most people are > waiting for a solution to become more ?mass > produced? and therefore cheaper/ understand > whether hybrid / air source/ heat source is going > to be the way forward (like VHS / Beta and > CDMA/GSM, it?s good to know what the generally > accepted new technology is going to be). It would > be good to have a thread on this in the lounge. If > I get a chance I?ll try and find some useful > sources of info and start one if no one else does. Great idea re: thread and agree - people waiting on emerging tech. Would also help if government policy had a clear and practical plan for homes in general. In the meantime we just keep on building ones which are not resilient to climate change impacts and will have to be adapted/retrofitted in various ways presumably. HP

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed and one of the early and highly vociferous > cycle campaigners seemed to have travelled the > world several times over...Wonder how many plane > flights that adds up to?! ooh - who was that? HP

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really clear how preserving wildlife and a > festival of this size go together? > > On a completely different note, the entrance to PR > has loads of broken glass stuck into soil. Rubbish > also left strewn around in the Japanese summer > house. What is it with people? 1. Agree reckon the wildlife would have something to say... 2. Sad...

'Improving significantly' re: the UK's carbon position is still not improving fast or far enough. Yes plenty of other greenhouse gasses of concern and improved modelling is needed wrt them as well; and also the unintended (toxic) consequences to the atmosphere of potential moves to a hydrogen economy etc. This is one thread on LTNs which are about the impact of having/not having them, air pollution, vehicle use, CO2 and climate change (relative importance of which depends on your personal viewpoint perhaps). Perhaps we need others on reducing carbon in other areas of (local) lives if people think there's a risk of sidelining other major CO2 contributors? HP

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Extreme weather to become the norm: > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extr > eme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepare > d-report-warns > > If we're not happy with measures which reduce car > use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in > time? Yes - yet another wake-up call! How many more will we ignore? HP