Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not at all interesting.  London has always been congested, certainly since Victorian times.  More fool the many motorists who continue to drive when they don't need to, refuse to have more than one in the car etc.  Fortunately for many journeys cycling is a quicker alternative.  It's a shame that many only post on 'bad news' stories.  I enjoyed Will Norman's Twitter feed as it was full of good stories.

 

Edited by malumbu
  • Like 1

Malumbu - your blatant and deliberate diversionary tactics to try and stop discussion on things you don't agree with is getting beyond a joke. Admin - I thought people were being told not to do this?

 

P.S. Malumbu - are you suggesting that Adam Tranter stepping down is a good thing - had he upset you somehow?

 

Returning to the subject in hand the fact that some "laugh" at the story (one can only presume they think it is funny that London is the most congested city in Europe as if it is something to aspire to) and the fact others say it is not interesting very aptly demonstrates the head-in-the-sand and blinkered attitude some have.

More congestion means more pollution - and that is bad news for all of us, surely something not to "laugh" at.

  • Agree 1

I've been thinking of my right to reply.  I try to avoid personal comments.  On this occasion the reference to Admin comes across as "I will tell teacher of you".  Rather than a grown up discussion.  Scroll to the sixth paragraph if you want to read my salient point rather than me going on and on.

Much of what is posted on this part of the forum is due to issues over LTNs, ULEZ, CPZs and other means to reduce vehicles.  I am general support.  Others of course will differ in their opinion.

Smarter driving is relevant to the whole congestion discussion.  As the London population increases and road space decreases we need to consider the use of our motor vehicles differently.  Do I need to make this journey, are there better alternatives in terms of the environment?  Could I share that journey with others?  On line shopping vs in store, and on the former do we buy too much to then return?  Cycling is relevant as for many this provides a good alternative, particularly for shorter journeys.  I'm not a fair weather cyclists, but understand that many do not want to cycle in the cold and wet, so of course there are limitations.  Much has been done to make cycling safer. I'd love universal secure street parking with CCTV when I am out and about but that isn't going to happen soon

Roads are clearer on a Monday and Friday as many more work at home.  There is less congestion over school holidays as less people driving their kids to school, and perhaps more taking time off work.   I believe we need to focus on reducing demand, and will continue to lobby my politicians to do this.  But driving is a habit that can be hard to break.  It provides convenience for many, but is this always to the wider good?  Softer measures and nudge have limited effects and we all know of people who hate public transport no matter how good we make it.

You appear to be of the view that it is reducing road space, and inconveniencing drivers, that is the issue, and this spills into vitriol about cyclists and Southwark Council .

[The 6th paragaph!] I've made my points numerous times over the years.  I've worked in transport for a decade or more so passionate about much of what I post about.  You have similarly posted numerous times with your arguments, where you feel very strongly.  I expect that many people are bored of our posts.  I'll now take a break from this and similar threads.  There is plenty that worries me in the world, Putin, Trump, climate change, so I will focus my attentions on this.

I posted what I thought was Will Noman's Twitter feed, which when I looked earlier was full of positive views.  As I am not sure whether I posted this, rather than some discussion that I know nothing about, I have deleted it.

 

 

19 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I've been thinking of my right to reply.  I try to avoid personal comments.  On this occasion the reference to Admin comes across as "I will tell teacher of you".  Rather than a grown up discussion. 

Malumbu, admin has warned you about these diversionary tactics before which led to you being restricted from some threads that were related to East Dulwich and they warned you that if you tried to derail threads you would be banned from more.

You can thank me later for drawing your attention to the fact that admin is watching your posts as you may have just saved yourself from a ban with your post-derail put it back on the rails post! 😉

 

One thing that was interesting was that in the full Inrix report it showed that they estimate the average car commute in London was 7 miles - as someone who regularly cycled 10 miles to work and then 10 miles back I can tell you it is not easy - and maybe those distances shed some light on why the nudge tactics of restricting roadspace for cars are clearly not working as many London commuters cannot switch to other modes to make their journeys. This might also explain why cycling is struggling to break out of low single figure percentages for daily journeys in London compared to other modes.

@Rockets did you say that the average commute by car was 7 miles? 

Doesn't that put in to perspective all those who have been banging on for ages that most car journeys are less rhan 3km ? 

Obviously there is a happy medium figure but to simply say "ban all cars because on average journeys are within walking or cycling distances" is clearly misleading. 

London is congested, some people like to cycle and some people need to drive. There needs to be provisions made for both otherwise London will grind to a halt. 

 

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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