Rockets

Yes we have been saying this for a long time and it is actually the pro-LTN, pro-cycle lobby that has been the catalyst for the very culture war that they now accuse others of starting. Many in the pro- lobby are now reaping what they sowed. FM you're right, the blind "cyclists are never wrong because they don't kill as many people as cars" narrative is incredibly damaging to their own cause. It's like those people trying to defend Starmer's government by saying that their sleaze isn't as bad as the Tory sleaze....they are kind of missing the bleedingly obvious point...

I didn't realise that but looking at the stats it does seem to be true. I do know the Dutch have a high per capita car ownership rate and a lot drive and cycle but why the mortality rate is so much higher than ours is interesting. Anyone have any clue?

Indeed, it just shows the lengths some on the pro-LTN cycle/lobby will go. I would put good money the same person posts under another name on this forum as well.....

To be fair Malumbu, some on here, rail against car use, champion a cleaner environment yet act in a most hypocritical way when it suits them to. You know you can be a cyclist and not like the way a lot of cyclists behave. I am, I am also a car driver and hate the way some people drive and not afraid to say it. It just seems there is some vow of silence amongst many in the cycle lobby to acknowledge that there might be a problem being caused by their fellow cyclists - this where the cycle cult reputation comes from. I think you'll find that history shows that the biggest lobby group working on councils to install LTNs was the cycle lobby - in all it's forms and to suggest otherwise is blinkered.

Interesting article from the Beeb on the challenges of housebuilding https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgw7x4y5rzo

Many happy returns Earl! It seems 2007 was a good year to join the forum as I did too!! One thing that hasn't changed is The Castle!

I once got stopped in Battersea Park whilst cycling by a Parks Police officer who tried to issue a PCN for cycling on the riverside walk (which I, at the time, had no idea cycling was not allowed on and actually successfully argued that there was no signage to inform people of such). Parks Police aren't police they are council employees dressed up as police. Given the high level of crimes in and around the park maybe the council could repurpose some of the traffic wardens they have flocking to the area to wander around the park to both provide a visual deterrent to those in the park up to no good (especially around school chuck out time) and they could also remind fast cyclists of their need to slow down (not many at all adhere to the 5pm limit in the park). So many people I know hate walking in the park (especially around school drop off and pick-up time) for fear of them or their dogs being hit by cyclists - the two most worrying sounds in the park are the hum of a Lime bike approaching from behind at great speed or the bone-shaker banging of a school drop-off cargo bike hurtling up behind you. A couple of weeks ago I saw the aftermath of a coming together of a Lime bike and a small child on a scooter (but didn't see the accident happen so cannot comment on who was in the wrong). Maybe there is also an argument (like that in Battersea Park) that cyclists should have to walk in the areas most used by pedestrians or the areas where large numbers of pedestrians congregate.

Yes I saw how they were proudly showing that they had built 70 odd affordable houses in the first batch. I really do hope they stick to their commitment but history tells us this is not what happens - that developers will often build the first batch fulfilling their affordable housing (to buy or rent) commitment but then u-turn. If I was a betting person I would wager that once completed the affordable housing is nowhere near 35%. Look at the Dulwich Square development - none of that ended up being affordable housing despite what the original application and plans said. If councils do take cash in lieu of social housing you can see why developers may see that as an easy way to pay their way out - they probably cover that cost 10 times over in the margins on the luxury properties they build instead.

I have seen a delivery van too - delivering to the cafe in the middle of the park - hardly using it as a cut-through.... I have also seen cars with wheelchairs parking in the places for cars with wheelchairs because, you know, people in wheelchairs often find it difficult to get to and from parks and therefore are afforded special permission to park their car with wheelchairs in the park....are we supposed to stop that now too....? I am finding it incredible that someone is trying to suggest that Dulwich Park was a major thoroughfare in the 1960s....that it was a "rat run".....

Yes this is how I remember it - a circular car park rather than through traffic. Seems to be born out by the council document too: These carriageways constitute a circular route and provide access to all areas of the park. These roads have also provided a considerable amount of parking for users of the park.

Someone should get that kid to the velodrome then.....! But they said that they want to reduce car use by 50% - which is easy to say, far harder to do (especially if there is no investment in public transport infrastructure to support it). If you only pour money into one form of transport the others will not work effectively. Which is a great picture but only in it's most simplistic visual form. It can only work in practice if everyone is doing the same thing, going in the same direction at the same time, transporting the same things - it's a wonderful ideological visual statement but one that doesn't actually exist - it's logical but utterly flawed when applied in the real world.

In the last 5 years the vast majority of engineering to our roads has been designed to "nudge" (isn't that the word TFL and councils use") drivers to switch to bikes. If I can't mentioned my observation about Lime bikes travelling at 20mph on a thread about Lime bikes where can I - do you suggest I start another thread......? Is it 14mph under battery power - if you pedal as well does that increase the speed? He was cracking along at 20mph - the Uber driver showed me and it was a bog standard Lime bike.

I think the definition of a through-route and rat-run was very different in 1963 so your comparison and use of this to illustrate your point is misleading....and the Dulwich Society says one of the issues was Dulwich was being used as a rat-run and cite the park access as an example but not the only example. In 1963 there was a boom in car traffic everywhere but it in no way compares to the definition of a rat-run now. I am glad you acknowledge that but why do you not challenge the council on this - after all they have been telling everyone they do not have any money? I think what you are describing there is what is known as a dictatorship...you're basically saying they should have ignored the views of the majority of residents.....Your obsessive minority mantra is really getting a bit tired now - time and time again it has been shown to be anything but and the obsessive minority are the ones on the other side of the argument. You are spot on - there is no more socialising there than there was before (despite the varied attempts by the friends of Dulwich Square to muster community activities). In fact, the biggest congregation of people there over the last 5 years has been the anti-LTN protest. Do kids hang around there after school on summer's days - yes they do, but they used to before the closure too? I did laugh that when a couple of kids started using the first design for skateboarding during lockdown some of those behind the square complained to the council and got measures added to stop them from doing so.....bah humbug.....

Yup, it's 15 year project (I think some elements of it started a year or so ago). Imagine how annoyed Earl will be when they find out that the new Teaco superstore planned has underground parking for 530 cars....

Come on Earl, you've got to admit First Mate does have a point...it's a bit odd that active travel is so important to the council that they repeatedly spend millions on that junction yet they increase the potential for car ownership by 20 by allowing a developer to add parking places. It's a bit....confused. BTW I still don't think we have established that parking around Dulwich Park was a "cut through'. Does anyone actually remember Dulwich Park being a through route...or just having cars able to drive and park around the perimeter?

Yup let's revive this thread in 2040 when it's all due to be finished and I will crow about how there's no cinema, no bowling alley and only a fraction of the affordable housing that was promised! 😉

How did the provision for affordable housing miraculously disappear then.....and if they did get a cash payment from the developers for removing it one wonders what the council then spent that money on....surely not.....? I haven't mentioned anything about parking spaces...I think you're confusing me with someone else you were arguing with! ;-0

Nope, this is not America - the picture you posted is and their use of cars, and retail space as a result, is massively different. But your fixation on car park space, whilst ignoring the fact that the cinema and bowling alley were entertainment hubs for many, really shows how utterly blinkered you have become (but this is not at all surprising and was to be expected and I love how I mentioned the closure of the cinema and bowling alley and you went straight to "good, there's a car park"). Only time will tell if the developers hit the 35% of affordable homes - I think there is more than enough historical evidence to suggest that being seduced by claims made by developers is a fool's game and that the actual number may be far fewer. And when the developers start saying "could" in their documentation you can probably bet that "things change" may be trotted out as development work starts - especially given the involvement of some of the companies that were involved in Elephant and Castle Masterplan where "a lot changed" between plans and completion. The Illustrative Masterplan could deliver around 3,000 new homes, helping to meet Southwark’s housing needs.

Yes in the sense that it's an over-priced house rammed into a tiny space with no garden. I don't have anywhere near that type of money but if I did - I wouldn't be looking at one of those. And the fact a few of them are still on sale suggests those with that type of money might think the same. I knew there had been an affordable housing element in the initial plans - so DKHB the council can change planning. According to the Dulwich Society Aquinna officered to pay a cash payment in lieu of building the affordable housing. This is how this type of thing happens all the time.

Well the aforementioned demolition of the Audi garage knocked down d#gs#it failing retail units (your words not mine) and replaced them with really expensive rabbit hutches - a number of which are still, not unsurprisingly, unsold. Weren't some of them supposed to be affordable homes in the original plans approved by Southwark?

I am shocked sometimes at how fast I see Lime bikes going - I was following one recently and he was doing 20mph down Lordship Lane and cycling up the inside of buses, squeezing between the parked cars and the buses - creating self-induced close passes - the Uber driver suggesting he was going to get himself killed. Aren't Lime bikes supposed to be topped at 14 mph?

Exactly....perhaps some of those commenting on here never went to either the cinema or the bowling alley but they were always very busy whenever I went - so they were both very well used resources. I am sorry to see them go but you know, good that they have been shut down because it gets rid of the car park.....#rollseyes No it's not but do we take it then that your vision of London then is huge swathes of over-priced loft-style apartments or luxury apartment blocks sold to the most wealthy, that come with a coffee shop, a 24-hour over-priced supermarket, an expensive gym and pool and a separate (discreet) entrance for those living in the (few) affordable houses that were built (for sale or often rent) to satiate planning requirements (that often start with a bold commitment but then gets significantly diluted throughout the process)? I refer you to the Elephant and Castle Masterplan.......funny how the architects seemingly always refer to them as masterplans.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/developers-ruining-cities-elephant-and-castle-london

Does London need more high-end, high-cost, high-margin housing - is that where the need really is - especially as more working families are being forced out of the capital because of the cost? Do the people who currently live in Surrey Quays need more high-end, high-cost housing at the cost of their leisure facilities? You're trying to distract about the Pizza Hut - I am looking at the big picture and this is a gentrification trend which ultimately harms London and the people who live in it. Perhaps you quite like the idea of a £1.9m 3 bed loft style apartment - unfortunately for most that's not a realistic target. The upsides tend to be reserved only for those who can afford to live there and, for most, those aren't the people who may have called it home for the whole of their lives.

How many local people currently use said pizza chain, cinema and bowling alley? How many local people will move into one of the new homes built over it? If you welcome over-priced houses, are a fan of gentrification and a bit of social cleansing to boot good for you! I am not. Go ask the people who use to live in Elephant and Castle about the impact this type of development has on a local community - developers don't build anything now for the incumbents. I am still chuckling to myself that people actually thought this was a good thing on the basis that it removed car parking space - it just shows how blinkered people can be - it's a very special branch of champagne socialist that has those thoughts!!!! 😉

Removing a high-usage cinema and bowling alley to replace it with a supermarket and expensive homes (at a cost well out of reach for the vast majority of local residents) should not be something that is championed just because it is removing parking spaces. At those sort of prices the developers are catering to the Canary Wharf and City banking types who want a short commute to the office - not the existing local community. This is why there is an constant flow of people out of London and why primary schools are closing left, right and centre - because developers behind things like the Canada Water Masterplan (not sure masterplan was the best name to give it as it suggests some sort of social cleansing) like this are only interested in catering to the high-margin, high earner market: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjwy5951lo#:~:text=People are leaving inner London,space in the outer suburbs Dumping supply is not good if the supply is only at the high-end, high-margin end of the market. Southwark News asked if there were plans for a cinema and bowling alley to replace the ones closed. Their response suggests that there will actually probably be an over-priced "artisan" coffee shop selling the finest Yak-dung coffee, a sandwich shop called Kumquat, a hot yoga studio and a We Work!!! 😉 We asked them if there was due to be a bowling alley, cinema and facilities similar to the ones due to close. Whilst British Land said they were ‘committed’ to delivering a variety of leisure and entertainment options, they were unable to confirm whether these facilities in particular would return.