first mate

Again, it is the complete random nature of it all; for anyone with a pet scared of firework noise this must be a nightmare.

Just had round two!

And the special occasion for tonight's noise extravaganza is? Does anyone know? Is that it or can we expect more?

@Earl Aelfheah said: "You don’t have to outsource your thinking to someone else." Of course you are entitled to your views, but I don't view agreeing with a panel of experts as 'outsourcing my thinking'. Unless you can tell us that you have a greater level of expertise and knowledge on factors affecting slowing bus speeds in London, I am more inclined to take on board their opinions than yours. However, if you feel you have greater expertise then do tell us? I am genuinely interested to hear the session you cited where car length and size is considered a major factor in current congestion issues. Please share.

This is your conclusion, not that of the LA session. I got the impression from that session that vehicles numbers had plateaued if not dropped but multiple journeys by delivery drivers were possibly an issue. Changes to road structure (cycle lanes and box junctions) were mentioned as factors, but not car size or length- can you link to the LA session where the latter was discussed? As stated before, the Council's CPZ plans have made a point of ring fencing (possibly increasing) parking on LL to facilitate shoppers visiting in cars. They felt it was necessary to balance the needs of car-using shoppers against those of residents and to protect businesses. At the time the ED CPZ was mooted I raised the issue of bus flow but posters who generally support these sort of interventions seemed unconcerned (perhaps playing the long game).

I think I have made clear, as indicated in the LA session, it is multifactorial. Car length and size was not mentioned as a factor but cycle lanes were. Can you link to the other discussion you refer to?

Actually, I think I may have read more meaning than intended into the initial post about this. I don't think Ellie Reeves was there to specifically address Gala, but it was suggested that since she was so close by the event venue it would be a good time to raise the subject with her. Someone please correct me if that is wrong.

But I thought it was a cyclist who drew attention to issues with the slippery and 'dangerous' surface at the newly landscaped Dulwich Square?

I'd go with the expert opinion at the LA panel which seemed balanced and reasonable. In the part I listened to, traffic and parking was mentioned (especially couriers) but no more emphasised than cycle lanes, public utilities- 'emergency' works (especially Thames Water), road design interventions like box junctions (viewed by the bus driver rep as primarily about money-making). Strangely, no mention of car length or size.

Rockets said: "Well @Earl Aelfheah I am no expert, and I am sure you're not too, but the assembled panel of experts for the London Assembly meeting to address declining bus speeds would not agree with you. They all agreed that carriageway pressure is one of the major contributing factors (along with roadworks). One specifically cited cycle lanes, LTNs, 20mph limits and public realm as key factors affecting bus speeds. Interestingly later in the discussion they talk about growing evidence that routes with interventions are some of the worst performing." I second this; I did not listen to the whole of the session, but from what I gathered length of cars was not mentioned at all or considered as a contributing factor in slower bus speeds. The problem with removing parking spaces on LL is that it flies in the face of Southwark Council's carefully devised CPZ plans, where it has said it will protect local businesses who fear losing out on shoppers in cars trade by ensuring paid for parking slots on LL and adjacent residential streets. This was all rationalised as balancing the needs of shoppers in cars with those of residents requiring parking space. When the CPZ plan first came out I immediately pointed out potential issues with buses and many of you were silent on the subject.

Surely both driver and cyclist might be prosecuted? The cyclist at night without lights on would be cycling illegally.

But you did not qualify not proceeding/stopping with an 'if necessary' and that is what I am quibbling about. Your version sounded like if momentarily dazzled by lights you should stop/not proceed.

Yes, but slowing down isn't. Come on Earl, you made it sound like if you are momentarily dazzled you should not proceed.

Yup, just not addressing the points you made; so, so obvious. Still nothing from DulvilleRes. If you make attacks and claims like that, at least have the decency to provide the 'proof'. You may have a point- perhaps they exist only in the imaginations of some. Not saying all cycle lanes are not busy, just some.

'Slowing down and stopping if necessary' is reasonable. Earl seemed to suggest you should not proceed at all, which reads like stopping immediately.