Rockets

Ermmm….https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/27/uk-childrens-cycle-maker-islabikes-to-shut-after-nearly-18-years They cite a “difficult and challenging time for the cycle industry”. Van Moof “tech bros…..who overinflated its value”…there have been a lot of investors who jumped into cycle companies during Covid….i wonder why….https://bikebiz.com/mayors-streetspace-plan-could-see-cycling-increased-tenfold-post-lockdown/ Problem is cycling in London (for example) is struggling to break a one-fold increase and the numbers are declining from their Covid peak (although the DfT report does show those who are cycling are cycling more in London - which is good) What can be done? I don’t know. Maybe the conditions will never exist where huge swathes of the population will jump on bikes, maybe there are just too many barriers to entry to create the tipping point no matter how much infrastructure is put in (when I started cycling there was no real infrastructure in place and this was during the boom years of cycling growth) and you can’t just keep investing money to support predominantly white middle-class men cycling if that comes at the expense of others who may use other forms of transport that are negatively impacted. Maybe instead of having Will Norman dictating policy we need someone a little more pragmatic - he, and his supporters, have been way too cycle-centric since the outset- often at the expense of other forms of transport. The problem is much of the cycle lobby was installed to positions of influence and have been able to dictate a somewhat myopic view of London’s post-Covid transport vision - aided and abetted by cycle-centric active travel “researchers”, lobbyists and media. Many of the articles on the troubles of the cycling industry suggest the biggest declines have been in the sales of children’s bikes and if that is the case then that is a big worry as those are the next generation of cyclists who aren’t getting on a bike.

I think it has been delayed...pending the outcome of the election......

Unfortunately a lot of cycle retailers and manufacturers are struggling right now because demand has slumped - Islabikes went under last week, VanMoof has gone under, Halfords, in it's 22/23 quarterly report said the market for bikes was down 20% year on year. The British Bicycle Association said that bike sales in 2022 were the lowest in the UK for 20 years. It all makes for very grim reading and clearly underlines how the promises of a ten-fold increase in cycling were utterly baseless and how those questioning the DfT report, whilst trying to convince themselves (and us) that cycling is booming may well be misguided. All the data suggests the Covid cycling boom is well and truly over. https://road.cc/content/news/uk-bike-sales-fall-lowest-level-20-years-299457 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/11/cycle-industrys-collapse-after-bike-boom-ends-this-year-say-analysts/?sh=196ad72c66d9 https://road.cc/content/news/moore-large-enters-liquidation-299931

It is not - Brenchley Gardens is SE23 - all of the houses on that road have SE23 postcodes - it's the same as Canonbie on the other side. Forest Hill Road is in SE22 but your post is about Brenchley Gardens.

Malumbu, this thread you have started seems to be more about your personal concerns about Brenchley Gardens in particular so you might want to change the thread title or move it to a Forest Hill forum. P.S. I am glad you are sharing your huge amounts of knowledge on road management and driver behaviour with us. Mr Chicken has engineering covered (although has been significantly muted by admins new behaviour rules) and now you are our self-proclaimed road management and driver behaviour expert - we know who to turn to in case of questions.

Earl- the DfT report is used to determine travel policy and investment and those declines since Covid show that Will Norman's declaration of a possible ten-fold increase in cycling was fanciful at best. I am hoping that more balanced policy-makers will take these trends and start taking a more pragmatic approach to transport investment that doesn't overweight on one form - as Sadiq, Will and TFL have. You quote rush-hour and yes that's great (but to be fair it has always been busy) but what about the rest of the time - much of the cycle infrastructure sits empty whilst buses struggle in traffic after the removal of bus lanes? First mate is spot on - cycling is not massively up and quotes like 40% increase (as a suggestion that it is an annual or overall increase) are wrong and misleading. But many within the cycle lobby are happy to mislead the public (especially when they are justifying the huge amounts of tax-payers money being invested - in Enfield Will Norman quoted 38% increase to justify the bew cycle lane which was a single month increase comparing a dry June with a very wet June and the actual increase was nearer a 10% overall annual increase). Cycling went up massively during Covid but has seen nothing but marked declines ever since and that is a fact. And a worrying fact for those devoting so much of London transport infrastructure to cycling - the cycling revolution just doesn't seem to be happening and it is about time people started asking why and what do they need to do differently.

The 40% increase figure is when comparing a very specific period of time in the autumn (2022 vs 2019) so is not a stat that can be used as Earl is as a generic "there's been a 40% increase in cycling" because it is time specific. It's an important clarification and a trap many, Will Norman included, on the pro-cycle lobby fall into time and time again - Will Norman has been criticised for claiming a 38% annual increase in cycling in Enfield that was a cherry-picked month on month comparison stat which is nowhere near the actual annual figure. The DfT data clearly shows a continued year-on-year decline in cycling in London since the pandemic. It is still higher than pre-pandemic levels but if the declines are not arrested then it will likely fall beneath pre-pandemic levels in the future (according to the DfT report outside of London is already back below pre-pandemic levels) - but clearly there's no sign of the ten-fold increase mooted by Will Norman. And yes, Dulwich Square may be busier with cyclists but that microcosm is not being repeated across the capital. I do wonder what more can be done because the current strategies in place seem not to be delivering.

I think there was a thread on this same loading bay a while ago and where someone had experienced the same thing. Loading bays are always a bit of an easy one for parking wardens as the rules are not crystal clear - and certainly no reason for the warden to presume that just because you aren't in a van that you aren't loading or unloading. Being there for 15 minutes though does probably weaken the argument because you are not allowed to park or wait in a loading bay but surely you have to park to be able to load..... I think that bay is rich pickings for the wardens.....

Latest One Dulwich update....no surprises that Southwark has not responded to the DFT questionnaire on LTNs........you can draw your own conclusions as to why..... One Dulwich Campaign Update | 16 Oct Southwark Council not co-operating with Government LTNs Review Last month, after the Government ordered a review of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, the DfT (Department for Transport) sent all councils questionnaires about any LTNs they had installed since 2020, and the consultation process used before they were built. Southwark Council is not co-operating. In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for a copy of their answers, Southwark replied: “Councils were requested and not instructed to complete the LTN survey. Southwark Council did not complete the questionnaire.” One Dulwich has now written to the DfT asking how we can submit evidence to the LTNs Review and inviting them to send us a copy of the questionnaire so that we can fill in the answers based on the evidence we have. Discrimination against Blue Badge holders at the Dulwich Village junction Several Blue Badge holders spoke to Southwark News about the increased pain, social isolation, and poorer quality of life caused by the 24/7 closure of the Dulwich Village junction. The article has already received 5,300 views. We hear that Southwark also plans to close Gilkes Place 24/7, with no exemptions for Blue Badge holders, despite having previously promised access to Dulwich Village from the Calton Avenue area. Closing date for objections – Ref. ‘TMO2324-011 Giles Place’ – to [email protected] by 19 October. We still haven’t received a response from Helen Hayes MP to our email of 2 June in which we asked her not just to pass on to Southwark Council the concerns raised by vulnerable residents but to actively champion their needs. Separately, we hear that she recently told a Blue Badge holder that a local campaign group had raised tens of thousands of pounds but “couldn't find any professional that supported the assertion that the junction could safely operate a timed closure model”. If anyone knows who this campaign group is, please get in touch. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

Court Lane and the surrounding roads are always good. Plenty of people always out and about and lots of houses joining in. It will be on the 31st and half-term for some so expect a lot out!

Don't we all but at what point do you have to say....its just not happening...if the numbers keep going down, as it is now, what is this saying and what is the solution? Keep building more infrastructure? Maybe the problem is those rolling this out had no idea what the problem was they were trying to solve and just got hooked on the "cycling is the answer" narrative.

Snowy - not entirely correct - he doesn't believe in poorly designed segregated cycling routes that put cyclists in danger and is highlighting the fact that cycle injuries are increasing as a result of those poor designs. Is that not to be welcomed - I know he really is a thorn in the side of Will Norman and the cycle lobby don't like him as a result? Take a look here, prime example. https://twitter.com/VincentStops/status/1712364566137450754?t=Xa2ZgAYyXVkk5lI6Vy1HQA&s=19 Look at that junction at Old Street - it's a mess and the shading of the cycle lane gives the cyclists the impression they have right of way but the Highway Code says they must not pass to the left of a vehicle turning left in front of them. Some of these designs are a recipe for disaster Snowy, I am not arguing about the proportion of spend I am arguing that much of the huge amount of infrastructure that has been put in at great cost to the tax-payer and bus passengers just isn't attracting enough cyclist to suggest it is successful. You have to agree that the DFT research does show cycling is declining though doesn't it - so what's going on, what do you think is going to buck the downward trend in cycling in London?

Earl, I am a cyclist (and someone who has commuted to work on my bike across London so probably well versed in what constitutes aggressive cycling) so I agree people cycling, and more people cycling, is a good thing. But surely you must be even a slightly bit concerned that over £1bn of tax-payers money has been spent on huge swathes of cycling infrastructure in London, which, in turn, is causing delays to buses and challenges for those who use them. Yet despite all this investment and infrastructure the numbers of cyclists in London are decreasing not increasing. Surely that concerns you - that all of the efforts to make cycling more popular are failing? Will Norman lauded a potential ten-fold increase in cyclists post-Covid yet if the numbers continue to decline at the rate they are we will be at the same level as pre-Covid and won't have even reached a one-fold increase. So whilst you aggressively accuse me (be careful of the new forum rules in relation to personal jibes BTW) of being down an anti-bicycle Twitter rabbit hole I am anything but - but I am a pragmatist and realist and the data is indicating something is not working. Any ideas on what you think needs to be done or do you subscribe to the "keep building it and they will come mantra"?

Aggressive cycling, whether intentional or not, is an issue but one that gets diluted if you are able to attract more people from more diverse backgrounds to cycling. The problem is that if the majority of your user group is middle-aged white males on hugely expensive racing bikes then a certain style of cycling is bound to be prevalent (the number of times I have been shouted at for daring to stop at a red-light if it impedes the cyclists behind me and when they overtake you can always predict the kit and the type of bike they are on). Cycle groups, TFL etc are desperately trying to get a broader, more representative, demographic and I suspect trends (nationally) in that regard could be seen from here but I don't have the time to look at it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1180737/nts0601.ods

Signoria on Lordship Lane is good for paninis etc - cracking breakfast and pasta too if you're there early enough/are hungry enough! Agree Heritage is good too

Ian, the council, during one of the LTN consultations, printed unique codes on the front of the envelopes dropped through people's door that needed to be entered when responding to the consultation so the council could identify that the person responding did actually live on that street - it was around the time of rumours of vested-interest groups like Southwark Cyclists and taxi drivers trying to influence the consultation even if they were from a completely different part of London. The council dropped the plan pretty quickly - I am not sure we ever heard why.

So Kurt, given that you say two of those three are overcome by well maintained cycle infrastructure do you have any explanation why the cycling numbers in London are continuing to decline given the amount of new cycle infrastructure now in place - is it inclement weather or something else?

I think Malumbu is agreeing, even though they seem to be punting the decision to others, that if the numbers aren't being delivered then it has to be looked into. And I think you're right that the positive impact on cycling numbers was a fluctuating statistic but one that was used as the catalyst for increased investment by pro-cycle lobbyists (promises of ten-fold increases) but the long-term trend is that, even after the installation of masses of new infrastructure, cycling growth has stalled (I read recently that Santander bikes saw a 22% drop in usage year-on-year which TFL put down to bad weather) Will Norman and others have built the huge investment and disruption of cycle infrastructure on the back of a premise of "if we build it they will come" but can anyone see anything that they are coming in the numbers needed so perhaps it's time for those installing these measures to do some proper analysis into why London is not turning into their poster-child Amsterdam (of course some of us know why and were posting about it for ages but were being called cynics - or worse).

Yet more diversionary and derailing tactics Malumbu? Admin has been very clear on the rules of this discussion forum so if you have something to add that can be considered part of the discussion go ahead - if not, then please don't post your constant attempts to derail thread after thread - it is becoming very tiresome.... And anyway, given your recent restrictions on posting in certain East Dulwich specific related threads I would have thought you would have welcomed the chance to join a discussion, maybe if we don't want to give you the ability to derail everything we just need to add East Dulwich to the title! 😉 and you will be unable to comment! But all joking aside, and to give you the chance to actually engage in the discussion, maybe let me ask you, yet another, direct question (which I very much suspect you will not answer because you never do) - Malumbu, do you think the significant investment in cycle infrastructure and it's associated impact on other modes of transport can continued to be justified if we don't see a marked upturn in cycling numbers? P.S. My name is Rockets not Rocks - only my close friends get to address me as Rocks! 😉

I think it is widely accepted that the money in Boris' cycling plan did materialise and in Will Norman's most recent cycling plan he was pledging £150m a year to continue the level of spending the Boris administration started. But LTNs are causing problems for buses just as much as the removal of bus lanes more centrally - the TFL vs Dulwich councillors debacle was triggered because TFL dared to publish a report that said the Dulwich LTNs were causing bus delays. And sorry not buying the LTNs aren't cycling infrastructure argument - you're probably going to try and convince me Will Normal gives equal weighting to plans for walking as he does cycling....;-) Heartblock - I agree, allowing buses through LTNs would be a very good idea but given the opposition from the council and their supporters to let emergency vehicles through LTNs it might be a big ask to let buses through.

In 2013 Boris committed to spend £913m over ten years on cycling and there was even more significant investment around Covid in cycling infrastructure. The argument that build more and they will come doesn’t seem to be bearing fruits, there has been a huge amount of infrastructure built around in, out and across London since Covid yet cycling levels are heading close to 2019 numbers in London - that’s not a trend that can continue to sustain the level of investment - the numbers have to be going up and showing a trajectory to get to the ten-fold increase. And the issue with buses is that much of the bus lane infrastructure is being torn out and replaced by cycle lane infrastructure and buses are being forced into the remaining lane with other road traffic - just look at any one of the bridges across the Thames like Blackfriars or Waterloo that used to have dedicated bus lanes and now no longer do have, which is adding to delays. Locally TFL cited the Dulwich LTNs displaced traffic as the cause of bus delays in the Croxted Road/Herne Hill area. Cycling seems to be struggling to break out from the white MAMIL demographic and these trends were being seen before Covid too - with many suggesting that cycling in London had been reaching its natural saturation point years before Covid. Perhaps if there had been a MAMOB (middle aged men on buses) lobby group then buses may not have been so overlooked!

This has nothing to do with whether I am championing cycling or not (your post does, however, read like another one of your barbed attacks and your usual diversionary tactics - that's a positive comment too! ;-)) You're a cyclist too Malumbu so let's put both our valuable experience into the discussion....... Do you have any thoughts on the data presented by the DFT survey - it makes pretty grim reading for Will Norman's "more than ten-fold increase" in cycling in London that he wrote in an op-ed/interview in BikeBiz in May 2020 doesn't it? Do you think there comes a point where you have to admit you can't keep pouring money into a project that clearly isn't delivering against it's stated goals - and one that significantly disrupts other forms of transport (buses) and the growing users of buses whilst doing so? Or is there something else that is missing that needs to be done to get the massive increases in cycling needed to justify the spend and the disruption? Could it be perhaps that the grand vision sold by Will Norman and the cycle lobby when they inserted themselves into the process at all levels selling the notion that London could be the next cycle-equivalent of Amsterdam wasn't ever likely to happen - that it was nothing more than a ludicrous pipe dream that is turning into a very expensive white elephant?

Good on them for giving you the £65 option but yes the irony given they are the ones most vocally shouting about the problems with Royal Mail in the area yet are continuing to use them for this...I presume they emailed that response to you? 😉 I wonder if there are many others who have got the notification late but did not challenge and just paid the full £130 amount?

Sue I agree - it's still not clear from the headline and I think it may still be confusing people as Malumbu clearly wants positive endorsement of the council and councillors so it should mention that in the headline. I thought it is quite interesting that many of the things people are suggesting are either infrastructure, that have been here for generations (parks and open spaces), or services that are out-sourced to other companies (parks and open spaces upkeep - Quadron; waste management - Veolia; leisure centre management - Everything Active - although I realise that was brought back in-house in June of this year).

The DFT's National Travel survey is used to determine policy on transport usage and infrastructure and this year's report made very interesting reading and really begs the question whether local and regional authority investment in transport are focussed in the right places. Now, cards on the table, I read the report and thought it validated my concern that there has been way too much focus on cycling in London which has come at the cost of public transport (buses in particular). So the question is, if these trends outlined in the DFT survey keep becoming reality is it time to admit that the vision of huge increases in cycling Will Norman et al have been selling to justify the £1bn investment in cycling infrastructure may never be realised and now is it now the time for more a pragmatic and balanced approach to road transport policy in the city, and our local area, and a look at how we start giving equal priority to bus travel and other active travel like walking? And let's ground this discussion on the almighty row between TFL and our local councillors on the impact the Dulwich LTNs were having on bus journeys through the area. Here is the report but it is incredibly detailed and it is based on surveys only but there is some fascinating stuff in there, especially considering this is what is used to mould transport policy. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2022 Some highlights when comparing 2022 to 2021: Increases to all modes trip rates nationally compared to 2021 except for cycling and tube. Nationally people are walking more (now higher than 2019 rates) Bus trips up 59% in London (35% outside of London) but still below 2019 numbers Tube use flat year on year and still below 2019 numbers Cycling trip rates now 5% lower than in 2019 nationally from the 2020 peak but those cycling are cycling further Cycling trip rates remained broadly similar between 2002 and 2022, with a slight increase shown in 2020. In 2022, there were 15 cycling trips per person, similar to the previous year (15 trips per person) and 5% lower compared to 2019 (16 trips per person). The relatively small number of cycling trips in the sample means that this series can be volatile, but it has remained between 14 and 20 trips per person per year since 2002. There has been a general upward trend in the average cycling miles travelled from 2002 to 2022, with a sharp increase in 2020. In 2022 there were 57 cycling miles per person travelled which was similar to the previous year (55 miles per person) and 4% higher than in 2019 (54 miles per person). Overall, average miles cycled in 2022 was 46% higher than in 2002 (39 miles per person). Some have taken the data and done some detailed analysis of it for London and I have to agree with Vincent that it must now be time to start asking why there is so much focus on cycling from Will Norman et al when a more pragmatic approach may yield better results for everyone - the ten-fold increase that was mooted by Will Norman is absolutely nowhere to be seen.