Southwark-wide CPZ

[mr.chicken]

40 minutes ago, first mate said:

Apparently Nunhead has very clean air. It is poorly served by public transport. There is no current issue with parking, suggesting the volume of cars is not that great.

I won't address your third paragraph as it is rather revealing about the sort of individual you are.

 

Excellent prevarication there first mate! You managed to Sounds like your are saying no without actually adopting the clearly absurd position of denying there are any problems.

And yes it is revealing about who I am! I really don't think it's good when you misrepresent my arrangements to the point of dishonesty. I will say though that if your only option for debate is dishonesty, has it not occurred to you that your position is flawed? Otherwise why the need for it?

Edit:

No scratch that, you literally don't know what "premise" means. A premise is a starting point. If my premise is that a CPZ is necessary then it's a logical impossibility that I want an alternative to be found. A premise is what other arguments flow from.

Saying "a CPZ is necessary [that's the premise]  therefore we must have it or an alternative" is nonsensical. Because of an alternative is an option them by definition it cannot be necessary.

If I'm looking for a CPZ OR an alternative, then those must logically be a conclusion drawn from an underlying premise.

So no I stand by my original wording. I was being snarky but actually you don't know what a premise is. And yes this does make it impossible up have a debate because you're accusing me of insisting a CPZ is necessary while I'm asking you for an alternative.

A CPZ in not necessary in an abstract sense, it is one of a package of measures that's proven to be able to tackle the underlying problems I'm taking about.

 

Anyway feel free to have a snit about that thereby neatly avoiding a concrete answer to what you think the problems are anna are not and what solutions you thing would be practical and effective.

Edited August 7, 2023 by mr.chicken
big edits, changed my mind

[malumbu]

15 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Get yourself a wheelchair mal, tie your legs down to stop using them  then see how dignified it is trying to get into an uber or black cab. The dignity comes through being able to get in and out relatively easily and where possible without assistance.

Better still go for one of the hidden disabilities like asperger's syndrome where a strange vehicle freaks you out.

Sometimes you are so far towards the anti car views that you can't spot when you are making life more awkward for others. 

That was a blanket statement about all car drivers - the whole notion that driving is a right and that non-drivers are inferior.  Its been pumped out by the authorities and societies for over six decades.  So if someone decides to give up their car for environmental, cost (ie cheaper alternatives) or just declining driving competence, good on them.  They haven't lost their masculinity or femininity.

With regards to the needs of the physically disabled, there have been massive steps (or should I say lower or no steps) on public transport in part due to the government doing the right thing and legislating.  www.gov.uk/guidance/rights-of-disabled-passengers-on-transport

The individual has the right to decide their own form of transport, disabled on non-disabled members of the population.  For the umpteenth time I am not about banning private cars, but less driving, smarter driving and all road users being competent and sharing the road.

[mr.chicken]

Further to @malumbu's point: it's about smarter driving. The roads are a painfully limited resource so we can't have a free for all. Let's say we get a borough wide CPZ and that reduces the amount of driving. It could easily be implemented such that blue badge holders can park wherever parking is allowed but controlled. That's well within Southwark's capability.

At that point it will likely be better for disabled car users, since there will be fewer cars on the roads and less contention for parking spaces. I suspect though at that point the conversation about disabled people will disappear, and there will be other reasons to get rid of the CPZ even though at that point it would be harmful to disabled users.

[Penguin68]

55 minutes ago, malumbu said:

the whole notion that driving is a right and that non-drivers are inferior.

Driving is a right, under law, earned through careful application and passing a relevant test, and paying for a licence, and assumes that that right has not been lost through poor driving and penalty points. That does not mean than non-drivers are in any way inferior - to suggest that those who believe the first statement also subscribe to the second would be false. You are trying to set up a conflict where none exists.

[Spartacus]

CPZs don't restrict driving, they are a blunt tool to ease parking pressure from streets. In this part of Southwark there aren't any real parking pressures apart from those caused by the council) 

In other areas drivers often have to drive around looking for a parking space in their allocated street(s) as the number of bays are often less than cars in an area, where as before the may have been able to park in another street nearby.

CPZs don't free up main roads for buses as most are implemented in side streets where buses don't run. (Little known fact that very few streets have bus routes along them) and even roads like Barry will still have lots of parking bays once a CPZ is implemented.

Bus lanes and urban clearways allow quicker movement of buses. 

CPZS don't restrict car use, they just add more fees to drive which at the time of financial crisis isn't a great move by any council, but people will put up and grumble as they often have a car for a reason.

In fact all a CPZ does is generate fees for the council and stops people / tradespeople from visiting an area without paying the council for the privilege, which in turn makes shopping here less attractive and drive people into the arms of out of town type shopping  with, surprise, driving involved to get there. 

This is why people are against a blanket CPZ as its not going to magically free the streets from the cars, speed up public transport or stop people driving (after all if you can almost guarantee a space near your home when going out in the car, why wouldn't you as you are paying to use that space as part of the CPZ) 

So mal the chicken, over to you, what would you do knowing a CPZ isn't going to be the golden panacea you try and claim it is. What are your other options that you want to sell to the masses.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Spartacus

[mr.chicken]

@Spartacus why do you feel the need to lie? No one had claimed it is a magic panacea. I have repeatedly stated that the LTN and CPZ are two elements of a large package of measures needed to tackle London's pollution and congestion problem.

If you can't make a point without telling obvious, outright lies then your point is without merit.

[Spartacus]

1 minute ago, mr.chicken said:

@Spartacus why do you feel the need to lie? No one had claimed it is a magic panacea. I have repeatedly stated that the LTN and CPZ are two elements of a large package of measures needed to tackle London's pollution and congestion problem.

If you can't make a point without telling obvious, outright lies then your point is without merit.

What lie ? It's an expression not a quote ! 

Rather than attack the player as you seem to do repeatedly, defend the ball. 

[mr.chicken]

25 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

What lie ? It's an expression not a quote !

It's an expression that's also a lie. Neither me or mal have every represented CPZ as a panacea. Stop lying about my position and then expecting me to defend against your lies.

[Spartacus]

12 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

It's an expression that's also a lie. Neither me or mal have every represented CPZ as a panacea. Stop lying about my position and then expecting me to defend against your lies.

Interesting tactic 

When challenged on your statements (CPZs will make it better for buses for example) you call people liars rather than answer the challenge! 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Spartacus

[Rockets]

CPZs do nothing to reduce car use. The council knows this, Malumbu knows this..even Mr Chicken knows this.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

CPZs do nothing to reduce car use. The council knows this.

You know this has been studied, right?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119021001005

I look forwards to hearing why basic human behaviour is different in London because reasons.

[malumbu]

Why wouldn't increased costs and/or reduced convenience of motoring encourage some people to give up their motor Rocks?  I'd love to know. Hadn't realised you'd planted a chip in my mind.

Edited August 7, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

So shall we have a little accuracy- detail is not Chick's forte, it seems.

I referred to a borough-wide CPZ, do you see the difference between that and just CPZ Chicken? To explain, borough-wide qualifies the type of CPZ. Not all CPZs are the same. Some may be active for only a few hours, others all day. I hope that is clear?

Spartacus referred to a "golden panacea" not, as you said "magic panacea". The two arguably have slightly different meanings...you may not have noticed that.

So can you please stop misquoting and lying about what other posters are saying and calm down a bit?  You seem almost hysterical, what with your shouting in caps and bold.

[Rockets]

12 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

You know this has been studied, right?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119021001005

I look forwards to hearing why basic human behaviour is different in London because reasons.

I will look through the whole report when I have time but one of the opening paras suggests Amsterdam may be slightly different to London.....and Dulwich in particular

 

 

2.1. Context

Amsterdam is a historic European city, characterised by narrow one-way streets and by a transportation system that offers many modal alternatives to travellers. In 2017, auto travel represented 27% of trips, while cycling, walking, public transport, and scooters, each accounted for 26%, 19%, 26%, and 2%, respectively (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019). About half of all car trips, excluding those made by residential parking permit holders, are made by non-residents.

[mr.chicken]

Well @malumbu it looks like the usual suspects have now just resorted to inventing positions for us and vociferously attacking those.

Also didn't you know that economics doesn't work in London so it's impossible to reduce the number of cars so we should just give up and have all of them.

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I will look through the whole report when I have time

Sure you will 😉

Well established models of human behavior suggest that if you make something more expensive and less convenient people will do less of it. And when that's been tried with controlled parking in another city, people did basically what was expected.

Amsterdam of course started it's anti car, pro human transport system in the 70s, but despite gales of whining from the car lobby they have built a successful system. We will never improve buses here if we did nothing.

 

[Rockets]

Sorry to point out the bleedingly obvious but Amsterdam is not London and the context of that research makes that very clear. Amsterdam is unique in its size and compactness and always gets rolled out as a great example but unfortunately it never translates to bigger cities...for obvious reasons.

[mr.chicken]

35 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Sorry to point out the bleedingly obvious but Amsterdam is not London and the context of that research makes that very clear. Amsterdam is unique in its size and compactness and always gets rolled out as a great example but unfortunately it never translates to bigger cities...for obvious reasons.

You are arguing that London is unique in the people don't follow the normal incentives of convenience or cost.

And Paris which is a much larger city than Amsterdam has had a lot of success reducing car traffic. Since those efforts are much newer they have been studied less but the results are clear.

Plus it's not the size of the city that's relevant, it's the size and density of the local area. I have little reason to every go to Romford, for example so the fact that It's too far by bike is irrelevant. What's relevant is what's nearby and what's accessible.

Fun fact, Malmo in Finland which has about the same density as the fake London in Canada and much colder weather then either London in winter has a vast amount of cycling. You can't argue that it is compact like Amsterdam.

So why is London different from Amsterdam, Paris and Malmo?

 

 

 

[first mate]

I always thought Malmo was in Sweden. Anyhow, it is flat, very flaaaat. You can bear cycling in most weathers but hills. Unless you are young and very fit, Dog Kennel or Forest Hill are going to present a bit of an obstacle, add in cold, grey days with torrential rain and... Cannot really compare.

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Driving is a right, under law, earned through careful application and passing a relevant test, and paying for a licence, and assumes that that right has not been lost through poor driving and penalty points. That does not mean than non-drivers are in any way inferior - to suggest that those who believe the first statement also subscribe to the second would be false. You are trying to set up a conflict where none exists.

Half of this isn't true true is it?
 

Driving is a privilege not a right, recognised by the fact that a license is revocable and that compulsory insurance required to operate a vehicle on the road.

If it were a right, you could have your license revoked and still justify driving. Try that and see what happens.

 

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I always thought Malmo was in Sweden. Anyhow, it is flat, very flaaaat. You can bear cycling in most weathers but hills. Unless you are young and very fit, Dog Kennel or Forest Hill are going to present a bit of an obstacle, add in cold, grey days with torrential rain and... Cannot really compare.

Argh you are right brain went missing there. I don't know anything about Malmo!

The city is Oulu in Finland. And here's the needed citation:

Oh and before you trot putt a repeat of the excuse that London is too hilly (lol!!!) turns out people also cycle in Switzerland.

I look forward to the excuse about how it's too big to constitute to Switzerland amma too hilly to compare to somewhere marginally flatter.

I notice that the excuses are along the line of: if you can't find a city that is identical to London in all respects then it's impossible to have any informed decisions about urban planning.

Those excuses hold water about as well as Thames water's sewage system.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by mr.chicken

[first mate]

But, you keep generalising, truly I am only interested in the local picture.

ED has some very large hills. We are told well get an e-bike but then there is the problem of where to keep that, both when out and about (bike theft is on the rise and they are expensive) and in the house. Those things are heavy. Then it's well use a hire e-bike. They are also heavy and cumbersome. I understand for many they may work well but not for all.

[mr.chicken]

7 minutes ago, snowy said:

Half of this isn't true true is it?

Well quite. And also: it takes it from "diving is a right" to "I have a right to drive specifically here", which is not and has never been true.

One can't drive through my house for example. Or if you insist on something public, you can't drive through the houses of parliament either.  Or something at road level too: well you can't drive on pavement. Or through pedestrianised areas, or the wrong way down a one way road or right through a no right turn filter.  Or down the hard shoulder.

It seems some people think the "right" to drive wherever you want. That's really really bizarre because it has never been true.

[Spartacus]

35 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

 

One can't drive through my house for example. Or if you insist on something public, you can't drive through the houses of parliament either.  Or something at road level too: well you can't drive on pavement. Or through pedestrianised areas, or the wrong way down a one way road or right through a no right turn filter.  Or down the hard shoulder.

It seems some people think the "right" to drive wherever you want. That's really really bizarre because it has never been true.

Strikes me that the same points should be made to cyclists, but hey ho if it's good for the goose then I'm more than happy to drive through your house 😅

[march46]

CPZs clearly have a role to play in reducing car journeys. It’s worth noting that ‘Small-area Controlled Parking Zones borough-wide’ is one of 6 key measures the Healthy Streets Coalition call on all London councils to implement. https://www.healthystreetsscorecard.london/

Lots of well-respected charities and campaign groups make up the Healthy Streets Coalition such as RoadPeace, Action Vision Zero, Wheels for Wellbeing, London Living Streets etc…, supported by Asthma & Lung UK and Clean Cities campaign. 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

You are arguing that London is unique in the people don't follow the normal incentives of convenience or cost.

No I am arguing that human behaviour is influenced by situation and location and repeatedly citing Amsterdam as a glorious example of how a city like London can be transformed is pointless because Amsterdam is nothing like London. In tne same way that London is completely different to Istanbul and so are its transport needs.

 

And Paris is not a glorious example either as congestion and pollution there is worse than ever. My Parisian friends love the theory of the 15 minute city but hate the reality of what it is causing. They tell me its great if you live close to where you work, if not (and for most Parisians that is the case) it is a transport disaster.

 

Of course since the LTNs went in in London we are now the most/one of the most congested cities in the world. Co-incidence - you will no doubt say yes. Others are less likely to be so convinced.