Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Walked up Calton this morning and I didn?t seen any signs about turning left onto Townley - if there was a sign it was hard for a pedestrian to spot so must be even trickier for a driver.

I also noticed plenty of cars heading northbound along Townley and Dulwich Village - perhaps there will be a period of amnesty whereby warning letters are sent before fine start?

I don't think the Townley one is in operation yet - there are signs there which are still covered with black polythene so can't see what they say...


I'm not sure why they're not all signposted the same way. If you go up Turney towards Burbage in the other direction there's a big sign saying no right turn except buses, taxis etc, which is a lot clearer. Maybe they forgot the sign for the other direction, the one I posted the pic of looks temporary?

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> Guardian

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

> why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author is.....none other than cycling activist and Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-)


As I read each of the points he tries to, unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder each time....the level of cultish delusion runs strongly through each....


Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into overdrive at the moment - they must sense that they are under pressure. Peter is posting an exclusive report today saying that there is no evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a big cycle lobbyist and activist.....


Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into overdrive The Mail on Sunday (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the UK's head paramedic saying that closures are impacting response times.....both sides are upping the ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambulances-traffic-jams.html

I went down to Dulwich Village to take a look. Walking along towards the Gallery it looked as if most people were just driving through. The warning signage is awful, a driver on Gallery Road has no idea about the Burbage Rd bus gate camera until they have turned and are in view of the camera.


Lots of grinning cyclists though.

I'm not sure why they're not all signposted the same way.


How on earth do you think the council is to get their forecast level of fines if they don't make it difficult and obscure for motorists, particularly those new to the area, possibly forced there by other road closures.

Hi there, does anyone know if there are any open consultations at present where I can formally register my full support for road closures, LTN etc.

I will also e-mail my local Councillors.

In my own short road there are numbers of people who run health children to school or even the bus stop or drive them to schools well out of the local area.

Until they get the message or we get road pricing we will need LTN, CPZ, traffic calming and all the rest.

Well based on my pic above I'm wondering. When you see a new bus gate ahead of you, the sign saying restricted access "ahead" with a left arrow looks as though it's encouraging you to turn left, even if the sign is red. And there you are, caught by the second bus gate. There are going to be some very angry delivery drivers and builders about the place.


PS have just looked at the underlying traffic order and it's a deliberate omission - there are clear "no turn" signs to be placed on Burbage heading eastward to Turney and on Turney heading away from the village to Burbage, but not on Turney heading towards the Village.

Hi peckhamside, you need to go to

https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/


the main map is the one (I think) where you can comment on areas not currently part of schemes, and there are separate links where you can comment on the schemes that have already been put in. That's assuming you're in Southwark? I think Lambeth have something similar, not sure about Lewisham.

"How about execessive car usage affecting emergency response times?"


Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years


You won't read that headline in the daily mail, because it's true



Rockets Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> > Guardian

> >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

>

> >

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

>

> > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

>

> Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author

> is.....none other than cycling activist and

> Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker

> ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation:

> How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-)

>

> As I read each of the points he tries to,

> unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder

> each time....the level of cultish delusion runs

> strongly through each....

>

> Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into

> overdrive at the moment - they must sense that

> they are under pressure. Peter is posting an

> exclusive report today saying that there is no

> evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the

> report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the

> director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a

> big cycle lobbyist and activist.....

>

> Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into

> overdrive The Mail on Sunday

> (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the

> UK's head paramedic saying that closures are

> impacting response times.....both sides are upping

> the

> ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8

> 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu

> lances-traffic-jams.html

Actually redpost the online DfT statistics show that motor traffic in Southwark fell between 1999 and 2019 (and the Lambeth transport policy expressly acknowledges that there has been a significant reduction in motor traffic in Lambeth in the last 15 years). The point is more that it needs to fall more if we are to achieve our environmental goals.


Edited to add: that Daily Mail article is hilarious - love the "frightening scene" at the Surbiton bus stop.

Here's the Rachel Aldred report.


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf


Reading it suggests to me that the Dulwich LTN doesn't really fit with her idea of where LTNs should go and what they are for:


"Boroughs should consider equity when developing and prioritising LTNs,given that LTNs may particularly benefit people living without access to private greenspace or local safe public places for playing or socialising"...


"Creating car-free and car-lite spaces in our neighbourhoods can be a low cost,rapid and efficient way to ensure that the many who have limited access to private gardens or urban parks,or who live in crowded flats or poor quality homes,can take a breath of fresh air,socialise maintaining a safe distance,play and exercise."



"While measures to reduce car use and enable active travel have multiple co-benefits, some policy goals may pull against each other in the shorter term. If we were primarily interested in reducing car use,this might suggest we should prioritise LTNs in richer areas,where car ownership and use is highest.This would have equity implications,as the people and neighbourhoods who might most benefit from LTNs would then be left behind; although indirectly they may benefit from wealthier people driving less. We need to understand better how the impacts of active travel measures vary by area of introduction,and to ensure that equity is considered alongside environmental criteria as part of a wider long-term vision for greener and more equitable cities."


The data bits of it aren't terribly helpful when it comes to assessing any particular LTN, as the conclusions are very general - they relate to the general "are LTNS automatically unfair" type argument rather than any particular case (if that makes sense)....

redpost Wrote:

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

> "How about execessive car usage affecting

> emergency response times?"

>

> Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years

>

> You won't read that headline in the daily mail,

> because it's true

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > nxjen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> > > Guardian

> > >

> > >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

>

> >

> > >

> >

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

>

> >

> > > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

> >

> > Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author

> > is.....none other than cycling activist and

> > Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker

> > ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike

> Nation:

> > How Cycling Can Save the World are

> going.....;-)

> >

> > As I read each of the points he tries to,

> > unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder

> > each time....the level of cultish delusion runs

> > strongly through each....

> >

> > Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going

> into

> > overdrive at the moment - they must sense that

> > they are under pressure. Peter is posting an

> > exclusive report today saying that there is no

> > evidence that LTN's cause social

> injustice...the

> > report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the

> > director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a

> > big cycle lobbyist and activist.....

> >

> > Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going

> into

> > overdrive The Mail on Sunday

> > (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting

> the

> > UK's head paramedic saying that closures are

> > impacting response times.....both sides are

> upping

> > the

> >

> ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8

>

> >

> 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu

>

> > lances-traffic-jams.html


Of course you won't read that headline in the Daily Mail because they are as much on an agenda push as the Guardian - they are coming from polar opposites of the debate.


Nor will the pro-lobby who have been publicising those estimated (the estimated is the key here and I will explain why in a moment) traffic increase figures want you to scratch beneath the surface. Even those estimated figures show that traffic is still markedly lower than it's peak in 1999 and the trend has been downwards for a long period of time. There has been no analysis as to what is causing the rise - it started in 2013 so I suspect it is linked to home delivery services.


Now, people are rightly challenging those estimated figures because, well, they are estimates. And when you actually look at real data using road counts and monitoring these numbers are not being seen.


Take our local area the OHS figures for DV (which were based on actual traffic counts using monitoring) clearly demonstrated that traffic through the DV junction has been declining year on year for a number of year. Not a huge drop but still year on year reductions - surely if there had been this huge increase in traffic since 2013 on the borough by borough basis seen in the estimated study then there would have been an increase in the real world?


This is at a time when the council is refusing to be transparent about their plans for monitoring and are suggesting that modelling will work to determine how much displacement and increases in pollution there has (or has not) been from these closures. The only way to get a real world view of the what is going on is to physically monitor.

I think this was also a catalyst for the pro-closure lobby push - this piece on the ITV News last week (pretty much you can do a find and replace on any mentioned of Ealing with Southwark in terms of the accusations of councils not listening and well done Crystal Palace for their protest against the closures!):


Actually redpost the online DfT statistics show that motor traffic in Southwark fell between 1999 and 2019 (and the Lambeth transport policy expressly acknowledges that there has been a significant reduction in motor traffic in Lambeth in the last 15 years). The point is more that it needs to fall more if we are to achieve our environmental goals.


It does and it doesn't.


If you look at the data for Southwark:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/103


If you go to the Summary page:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary

and filter traffic by Road Type on C-roads, there's a massive increase.


The raw counts don't always pick this up because they're at fixed locations so what is measured as a decrease in traffic passing a fixed point on an A-road is actually measured as an increase in traffic along a C-road. Basically rat-running. The physical counts of how many vehicles have gone down a certain road need to be tied into other measures like phone data, traffic flow, congestion charge counts, ANPR, temporary traffic counts (the little boxes with a sensor cable stretched across the road) plus things a bit more removed like census data, surveys and car sales figures.


Here's London overall as one Region:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

Again, you can filter by road type, traffic type etc.. It's 3.6 BILLION more miles driven on London's roads in the space of 10 years.


There's a huge amount of info and data in there to go through and just saying "oh there's been a decrease in traffic" is not true. There might be a decrease past a fixed point but it's not shown in the bigger picture. Residential streets (where there are generally no traffic counts) have become sponges to absorb the arterial route traffic. Everyone is on Waze and Google Maps being shown all these little cut throughs to save a minute here or there. The result being that they're directed off the A-roads, away from the traffic counters and into the residential streets. Traffic displacement in reverse.


There's a few articles out at the moment. The Peter Green one linked above.

This one which mentions Railton Road: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/16/i-got-it-wrong-since-the-changes-its-become-more-vibrant-life-in-an-ltn


The guy in Daily Mail article has form for this, he was saying the same about segregated cycle lanes in London in about 2017. None of his scare-mongering has been shown to be true. As a general rule the Daily Mail isn't really interested in truth. ;-)

Ex- and to be fair, and in the interests of balance, nor is Peter Walker and the The Guardian interested in the truth.......;-)


The truth is out there somewhere...and I think this is what is acting as the catalyst for so much push back against these closures...people can see for themselves what is happening in their own local area and they are not taking well to some faceless local bureaucrats and pro-closure lobby groups telling them everything is going really well....

Thanks exdulwicher & rarah, very interesting.


I suspected the displacement onto minor roads, I don't drive, but when I get an uber I can see the trip avoiding main roads quite often even when (personally) I'd prefer the main road route as less a lot less turns and less potential harm to residents/kids on small streets etc

Truth is good, facts often better.


I'm reminded of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where he tells his class that archaeology is the search for FACTS. Not TRUTH.


"If it's truth you're interested in, the philosophy class is right down the hall."


Question (really for exdulwicher who seems likely to know) - is it me, or is there an awfully high percentage of estimated data in those data sheets? I'm not a statistician so don't really know what I'm looking at, but there seems like a lot more estimated data than actual count data happening (I was just looking at the Southwark one). Is that the case do you think? i ask that from an agnostic position as regards LTNS or anything else generally, it just seems like avilable data on this and air pollution isn't crash hot, which doesn't help either side of the debate. Does Southwark collect its own traffic data separately to inform itself or is the monitoring done centrally? If councils collect data does this get sent to dfT (and likewise TfL)? You'd hope that from an efficiency perspective all the data is pooled?
rah rah do you have the explanatory notes to accompany that? There's no way 86% of the fuel I put in my car just drips out of the engine.


That's about right - varies depending on how you measure it, if it's a rolling road or real-world; also real-world things like temperature, speed, manner of driving but tank-to-wheel efficiency is about 16 - 20%.


The TTW efficiency is determined by the total amount of losses, which in a combustion engine comprise thermal losses, pump losses and mechanical losses. The thermal losses occur as not all of the fuel energy is transformed to mechanical energy, and most of these losses are dissipated through the exhaust. The combustion process is unable to utilize all the thermal energy, and the exhaust ends up at a higher temperature and pressure than the ambient air. All the rotating parts of the engine creates friction when moving and results in mechanical losses, which increase with the speed of the engine.


It's a massive pain modelling that ofr all types of vehicle though so generally an average figure is used. Diesel engines on biodiesel can get up to 35% efficiency in absolutely ideal running conditions.


Not my area but useful to understand the basics when politicians start banging on about "net-zero" or how cars are more efficient now therefore there's less pollution per car therefore we can build more roads and have more cars....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...