Good news for cycle commuters

[rendelharris]

The new quietways are encouraging the use of backstreets (as usual with opposition from car drivers who don't want cyclists anywhere). Obviously it's not possible to build segregated cycle provision on most residential streets. For cycle safety it's clearly better to have segregated lanes on main roads than winding routes through often poorly surfaced backstreets where the majority of drivers don't observe the 20MPH limit. Again you reveal your attitude that cyclists don't have the same rights as motorised traffic to be on the road (before you say I'm putting words in your mouth again, this from you in the past: "A city the size of London is not and cannot ever be cycle-friendly like Cambridge or Amsterdam. Road space is a very scarce resource. It should not be allocated to a minority of users"). I wish you'd just admit this.

I said to you what feels like many moons ago that obviously action against heavy vehicle traffic would have to be taken, including bans at certain times, encouraging nighttime deliveries, offloading heavy loads onto smaller, greener vehicles outside London, greater use of the river etc. There are solutions, none of them perfect, none of them complete solutions, but it's no good just throwing your hands up and saying "Oh this is always going to happen, you won't discourage them" (which is not putting words in your mouth, that's an exact paraphrase of what you said above).

Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London, not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham to Westminster.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For

> cycle safety it's clearly better to have

> segregated lanes on main roads than winding routes

> through often poorly surfaced backstreets where

> the majority of drivers don't observe the 20MPH

> limit.

Dog Kennel Hill and Camberwell New Road do not have segregated cycle lanes. The alternatives I mentioned of Camberwell Grove and Calais street, in my humble opinion, make more sense for cyclists because they are less congested, have fewer traffic lights, and much less vehicular traffic. It's nothing to do with cyclists not having the right to be on Camberwell new road, and all to do with the fact that it would make a lot of sense for everyone, including them. They would breath less polluted air and be exposed to less traffic. Just like with the advice of staying back from large vehicles, I speak from direct personal experience, because these are the routes I prefer(ed) (before the bridge on the grove was closed) when riding my motorcycle, for this very reason. It doesn't mean I don't think I have the right to ride on the main road, it means I find it more convenient not to in light of the alternatives.

Have you ever driven or ridden along Calais street? I ride there often and, let me tell you, regardless of the speed limits, going above 20 mph is hard: the road is narrow and twisty. I admit I never see cars speeding there; on the main roads yes, but not there.

Again you reveal your attitude that

> cyclists don't have the same rights as motorised

> traffic to be on the road (before you say I'm

> putting words in your mouth again, this from you

> in the past: "A city the size of London is not and

> cannot ever be cycle-friendly like Cambridge or

> Amsterdam. Road space is a very scarce resource.

> It should not be allocated to a minority of

> users"). I wish you'd just admit this.

Of course I admit it. If a majority of bus users is inconvenienced for the sake of a minority of cycle lane users who only use it at rush hour, according to my experience), that's not right.

> I said to you what feels like many moons ago that

> obviously action against heavy vehicle traffic

> would have to be taken, including bans at certain

> times, encouraging nighttime deliveries,

> offloading heavy loads onto smaller, greener

> vehicles outside London, greater use of the river

> etc.

On this we seem to agree! But closing down lanes and roads without doing any of the above simply worsens congestion and pollution, for the reasons mentioned previously.

>There are solutions, none of them perfect,

> none of them complete solutions, but it's no good

> just throwing your hands up and saying "Oh this is

> always going to happen, you won't discourage them"

> (which is not putting words in your mouth, that's

> an exact paraphrase of what you said above).

I never said nothing should be done. My bullet points in the previous post show exactly what I think should be done (which is not nothing).

> Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London,

> not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by

> car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as

> much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham

> to Westminster.

Yes. Having a decent public transport system that doesn't cost a kidney would help. In my case, it was the Southern Fail/London Bridge fiasco that prompted me to use my motorcycle to commute to work.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London,

> not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by

> car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as

> much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham

> to Westminster.

That's not true. Not true at all. The person who commutes from Peckham to Westminster is driving into a highly congested part of town with the result that they will spend more time idling in traffic. Their journey time will be longer and they're causing pollution whilst not going anywhere. The person commuting from Wimbledon to Streatham will be spending more time in moving traffic, meaning the journey time will be quicker and they're polluting less. Assuming both commuters are driving an identical vehicle, obviously.

Surely the focus needs to be on reducing pollution? If that means reducing the number of cars then fine, but lets at least see some proof that cars are the main cause of London's pollution problem before we set out to restrict them. Evidence-based policy please, not ideological dogma.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Focus needs to be on all car use in all of

> London,

> > not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes

> by

> > car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as

> > much pollution as someone commuting from

> Peckham

> > to Westminster.

>

> That's not true. Not true at all. The person who

> commutes from Peckham to Westminster is driving

> into a highly congested part of town with the

> result that they will spend more time idling in

> traffic. Their journey time will be longer and

> they're causing pollution whilst not going

> anywhere. The person commuting from Wimbledon to

> Streatham will be spending more time in moving

> traffic, meaning the journey time will be quicker

> and they're polluting less. Assuming both

> commuters are driving an identical vehicle,

> obviously.

>

> Surely the focus needs to be on reducing

> pollution? If that means reducing the number of

> cars then fine, but lets at least see some proof

> that cars are the main cause of London's pollution

> problem before we set out to restrict them.

> Evidence-based policy please, not ideological

> dogma.

You've clearly not tried driving from Wimbledon to Streatham in the rush hour. It's a distance of 4.2 miles, Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside is 3.7. The roads from Wimbledon to Streatham are just as congested, if not more so, than Peckham to Westminster - I know this from personal experience and saying "that's just not true" doesn't actually change that.

Cars are responsible for between 20%-30% of London's pollution (depending on type of pollution measured), diesel buses about 16%. These are things we (i.e. the GLA) can control, unlike sources such as aircraft pollution, factory pollutants blown from elsewhere.

I know you and other car lovers squeal with indignation at the thought of curbs on their use - you might like to consider that pollutant levels inside your car are around 2.5 times those outside, so, with piquant irony, while you're poisoning the city you're actually poisoning yourself even more.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You've clearly not tried driving from Wimbledon to

> Streatham in the rush hour. It's a distance of

> 4.2 miles, Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside

> is 3.7. The roads from Wimbledon to Streatham are

> just as congested, if not more so, than Peckham to

> Westminster - I know this from personal experience

> and saying "that's just not true" doesn't actually

> change that.

One of my favourite ever sayings is "the plural of anecdote is not data". I've no reason to doubt your experience, what I would question is how representative your experience actually is. For example, Peckham Rye Station to Westminster Bridge northside is actually 4.2 miles. And it's interesting that because your experiences are different to mine, you've automatically assumed that I've never driven from Wimbledon to Streatham in rush hour.

> Cars are responsible for between 20%-30% of

> London's pollution (depending on type of pollution

> measured), diesel buses about 16%. These are

> things we (i.e. the GLA) can control, unlike

> sources such as aircraft pollution, factory

> pollutants blown from elsewhere.

Any reference for this data?

> I know you and other car lovers squeal with

> indignation at the thought of curbs on their use -

> you might like to consider that pollutant levels

> inside your car are around 2.5 times those

> outside, so, with piquant irony, while you're

> poisoning the city you're actually poisoning

> yourself even more.

Thanks, that's useful to know, next time I get in the car I'll open the windows.

On a more serious note, if you can point to anywhere I've "squealed with indignation" at the thought of restricting car usage then go right ahead. I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove that there will be a net positive effect which will outweigh the negatives. But asking for evidence before I support a policy doesn't make me some kind of rabid pro-car nutjob, it just makes me a rational person.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia:

"For example, Peckham Rye Station to Westminster Bridge northside is actually 4.2 miles."

Interesting, you're basically accusing me of lying when I never mentioned Peckham Rye station, I said from Peckham: I take the centre of Peckham to be at the end of Rye Lane, outside the library, from whence, according to Google Maps, it is in fact 3.56 miles to Big Ben by road (oh and from Peckham Rye Station it's 3.94).

"One of my favourite ever sayings is "the plural of anecdote is not data""

That's actually quite hilarious coming from someone who answered my statement that Wimbledon-Streatham was as long to drive in rush hour as Peckham-Westminster with "That's not true. Not true at all." without any evidence to back up your assertion.

"Any reference for this data?"

Unlike for your assertions, yep. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-air-pollution/

"I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove that there will be a net positive effect which will outweigh the negatives."

The negatives being your "right" to drive where and when you want? I wouldn't be so rude to call you a nutjob, but your posts on this thread and on others show that you are demonstrably very, very pro-car and very anti any restrictions on motorists. That's fine, you're entitled to be, but then be who you are instead of demanding that everyone with a contrary point of view to your own produce evidence whilst offering none yourself as if you're merely some disinterested unbiased seeker for truth.

(Edited for grammar)

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Any reference for this data?"

>

> Unlike for your assertions, yep.

> http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes

> -londons-air-pollution/

Ok, follow the links back to the primary source, here:

http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis-Nov2016.pdf?noredirect=1

Figure 2.3: in central London, cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for a mere 8% of NOx pollution. Not "20-30%". Expand it to the whole of greater London then the figure rises to 18%. Still not "20-30%". Also note that "cars" includes private hire vehicles (minicabs, Uber etc., but not licensed taxis which are separate) so private cars are responsible for even less NOx than those figures imply.

Figure 2.4: when it comes to PM emissions I think you've misinterpreted the Greenpeace summary you linked to because cars contribute nowhere near "20-30%". In central London cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for 3% of all PM10 emissions and in greater London it's just 2%. Same caveat as above applies to minicabs etc.

It's an interesting report. The biggest reductions in pollution from road transport can be made by switching buses to hybrids, phasing out diesel taxis in favour of hybrids/electric vehicles and finding a way of reducing the number of HGVs on the roads. Reducing the number of private cars is only of marginal benefit. That doesn't mean we should ignore the contribution made by private cars, but I would argue that when it comes to spending public money on improving air quality, the focus should be on the areas where the biggest gains can be made. In this case, buses and taxis.

> "I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove

> that there will be a net positive effect which

> will outweigh the negatives."

>

> The negatives being your "right" to drive where

> and when you want? I wouldn't be so rude to call

> you a nutjob, but your posts on this thread and on

> others show that you are demonstrably very, very

> pro-car and very anti any restrictions on

> motorists. That's fine, you're entitled to be,

> but then be who you are instead of demanding that

> everyone with a contrary point of view to your own

> produce evidence whilst offering none yourself as

> if you're merely some disinterested unbiased

> seeker for truth.

I'm in favour of expanding the ULEZ to the north/south circular. In fact, you could propose to do it tomorrow and I would still be in favour, even though my car is old enough to be caught up in the regulation. I wouldn't care if you brought back the western extension to the CCZ and I don't mind if double yellow lines are slapped all over East Dulwich's junctions to improve sightlines for pedestrians. All of these will negatively affect me but because it has been shown that there are positive benefits for everyone then I'm in favour of them. So that's three anti-car policies I'm in favour of, would you now care to show where I've "squealed with indignation" at the thought of restricting car usage?

[rendelharris]

"Petrol cars are the cause of two thirds of the amount of London NOx emissions (7%) that diesel cars are (11%), according to IPPR?s analysis of 2010 data released by the Greater London Authority."

So, 18% of emissions.

"And when it comes to the particulate PM10, petrol cars are even worse than diesel, causing 16% and 13% of London?s emissions respectively."

Which comes to 29%, doesn't it?

I gladly withdraw my claim of 20-30% and replace it with 18-29%, depending on which pollutant is being measured.

I think there's some confusion in the report to which you linked: it says that 40% of London's particulate matter pollution comes from diesel vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to private cars. Given that there are somewhere close to a million diesel cars in London, does that seem likely to you?

I'll take your apology for implying I was lying re distances as read, shall I?

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I gladly withdraw my claim of 20-30% and replace

> it with 18-29%, depending on which pollutant is

> being measured.

Did you actually read the primary literature? Figure 2.4? It clearly shows that the Greenpeace interpretation is incorrect. Come on, this is basic comprehension. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, any GCSE student knows that.

> I think there's some confusion in the report to

> which you linked: it says that 40% of London's

> particulate matter pollution comes from diesel

> vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to

> private cars. Given that there are somewhere

> close to a million diesel cars in London, does

> that seem likely to you?

There may be a million private diesel cars in London but how many miles are actually driven per day by private cars? Not that many because people just use them to commute to work and back. In contrast, buses are driven 18 hours a day (24 hours a day for night routes) and a lot of taxis are always on the move looking for fares. Delivery vans (diesel, of course) are driving round for 10-12 hours a day, plus there are all the coaches coming in and out of Victoria, not to mention the open-top tourist buses which are all constantly on the move. Most of those sources of emissions are also much more polluting than cars because their engines are bigger and they're heavier so cause more brake wear when they stop. So yes, take all those things into consideration and it's easy to see why private cars cause so little pollution in comparison to other sources.

> I'll take your apology for implying I was lying re

> distances as read, shall I?

I edited that bit out because my post was too long and I wanted to concentrate on the IPPR report. But since you asked:

The reason I picked the station was because I didn't know what you meant by "Peckham". I just chose a fairly central landmark from which to base my distances on, that's all. If you'd specified the library then I'd have used that. I wasn't accusing you of lying, I was accusing you of being vague and inaccurate. You initially said 3.7 miles from Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside, then revised it to 3.56 miles. What happened to the extra 225 metres?

[teddyboy23]

I agree cycling is good exercise for the heart.but as reducing the risk of cancer that's just bollocks.doesn't make any difference if you cycle 20 miles a week or 2000 miles a week.doesn't matter if your the fittest person on earth cancer doesn't pick and choose certain people.it effects anyone

[rendelharris]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree cycling is good exercise for the heart.but

> as reducing the risk of cancer that's just

> bollocks.doesn't make any difference if you cycle

> 20 miles a week or 2000 miles a week.doesn't

> matter if your the fittest person on earth cancer

> doesn't pick and choose certain people.it effects

> anyone

It most certainly does and some of the healthiest people I know have had cancer and some of the biggest slobs (like me) haven't - but this study (and others) does seem to show that more exercise lowers the risk. I'm way off being competent to comment scientifically as to why that should be, but unless they're just making up the results it does seem to be a thing.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did you actually read the primary literature?

> Figure 2.4? It clearly shows that the Greenpeace

> interpretation is incorrect. Come on, this is

> basic comprehension. Primary sources are more

> reliable than secondary sources, any GCSE student

> knows that.

Your own statement: "Figure 2.3: in central London, cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for a mere 8% of NOx pollution. Not "20-30%". Expand it to the whole of greater London then the figure rises to 18%."

So in Greater London Nox pollution is 18% from private cars - I gladly concede not 20% as I said.

> > I think there's some confusion in the report to

> > which you linked: it says that 40% of London's

> > particulate matter pollution comes from diesel

> > vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to

> > private cars. Given that there are somewhere

> > close to a million diesel cars in London, does

> > that seem likely to you?

>

> There may be a million private diesel cars in

> London but how many miles are actually driven per

> day by private cars? Not that many because people

> just use them to commute to work and back. In

> contrast, buses are driven 18 hours a day (24

> hours a day for night routes) and a lot of taxis

> are always on the move looking for fares. Delivery

> vans (diesel, of course) are driving round for

> 10-12 hours a day, plus there are all the coaches

> coming in and out of Victoria, not to mention the

> open-top tourist buses which are all constantly on

> the move. Most of those sources of emissions are

> also much more polluting than cars because their

> engines are bigger and they're heavier so cause

> more brake wear when they stop. So yes, take all

> those things into consideration and it's easy to

> see why private cars cause so little pollution in

> comparison to other sources.

1 million private diesels in London and they're only responsible for 1% of particulate pollution? Really? I think it's rather more likely that Greenpeace have got that figure right, we should both look into this more.

>

> The reason I picked the station was because I

> didn't know what you meant by "Peckham". I just

> chose a fairly central landmark from which to base

> my distances on, that's all. If you'd specified

> the library then I'd have used that. I wasn't

> accusing you of lying, I was accusing you of being

> vague and inaccurate. You initially said 3.7 miles

> from Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside, then

> revised it to 3.56 miles. What happened to the

> extra 225 metres?

Firstly, I wasn't being vague, anyone thinking "Peckham" would think of the centre of Peckham, not Peckham Rye, which is south Peckham bordering on East Dulwich. The extra 225 metres is because when I went back to look at Gmaps I saw it had taken a rather absurd long route round - the most direct road route is as I latterly stated. Happy to cycle it with you any time you like for verification.