Rockets

Or maybe Malumbu, those vehemently against the LTNs are principally concerned that they create more congestion and pollution and don't actually deliver against the goals that are stated for their deployment. This whole "inconvenience to themselves" narrative doesn't hold any weight I am afraid. We are, however, very glad to hear that you sleep well at night - that is very reassuring! ;-)

Does the BBC do clickbait not normally their style? Their story is still up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863 Funny tbe BBC story is not corrected after 10 hours...normally that only happens if the BBC are 100% happy that the headline is correct or based on the info that was sent to them. Maybe Inrix did say that but are now trying to redress the balance. Someone gave tbe outlets the story that made the headline.....they didn't make it up themselves...expect it from the Mail certainly only not the BBC - they are quick to correct any inaccuracies and have fact checkers to do that.

Yes but enabling micro-mobility should not be a catalyst for an increase in injuries and hospital admissions and what I find amazing is that TFL and the council roll out these grand programmes (often funded by the companies who are desperately trying to get a foothold in the market and will pay huge amounts to do a land grab) without, seemingly, a single glance to what has been happening everywhere else that e-scooters have been rolled out. Do a search - no-one in any city where they have been rolled out seem to have much good to say about them - Paris had huge problems with injuries caused by them and reduced their max speed as a result, Munich has a massive littering problem and drunk-driving problem with them, Stockholm has banned them from parts of the city and so the list goes on. Of course I am concerned about road safety but was surprised/not surprised by your phraseology (which is the anti-car phraseology, I mean really...it doesn't stop drivers killing 5 people each day...it's a bit pointed isn't it?) but also amazed Southwark are rolling out e-scooters. It seems that in the quest for modal shift they grasp desperately at any "solution" they can see and councils and transport authorities get awfully blinkered and make truly bizarre decisions. Does anyone here really think that once these get rolled out we won't all be saying what a pain they are or that the outcomes in other cities over the last few years won't be repeated here? I think you should be concerned that a surgeon at Kings is concerned enough to flag the issue - 196 admissions in a year does seem a lot (but I appreciate Kings does have a large catchment area) especially considering there was no official rollout of e-scooters at that point. It makes you wonder what will happen when the council rolls-out the hire network. Meanwhile, per Spartacus' post we read that London is now the most congested city in the world due to the installation of cycle lanes during the pandemic (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863), which if correct, will definitely be leading to a massive increase in pollution. A cycle charity was contacted by the BBC and they said that the research was "incredibly simplistic" and "not written by Rachel Aldred so should be ignored" - they didn't say the second bit! ;-)

And there is this narrative that all road deaths are the fault of drivers - Ex- you just fell into that trap with your drivers killing 5 people every day commentary - which we hear time and time again from the pro-cycle lobby - as if drivers are on a deliberate quest to kill people. It's really not helpful as any death is one too many. No-one knows the circumstances of each and every accident and whilst it is true that there are deaths caused everyday by vehicles it's not always the driver's fault - for example, I was in cab with a driver who had been a witness to a fatal bike accident and he said that the cyclist had been texting on their phone, lost control of their bike and fell into the path of a vehicle and that it was no fault of the vehicle driver who could do nothing about it. Ex- there must be concern about the rise in e-scooter accidents for the Kings specialist to go to the papers about the rise and they say: "Our day case trauma surgical lists are being impacted with an increasing volume of patients needing surgery to treat complicated fractures following e-scooter collisions. The increasing costs, and their rate of increase, are a concern.? But, hey ho, let's just ignore this because e-scooters are not cars and, therefore by default must be brilliant! I am not drinking that Kool-Aid I am afraid and so it seems are lot of other people in a lot of other countries who have first-hand experience of dealing with the issues they cause. And rjsmall yes drunk driving on scooters is a big issue in those countries that have had them for a few years: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/06/rise-in-drunk-riding-fuels-munichs-call-for-e-scooter-curbs-during-oktoberfest

196 patients attending Kings in 2020 as a result of e-scooter accidents is an incredibly large number (especially considering they weren't being as used much then) - frighteningly large and does nothing to sway me from my thought that e-scooters are inherently dangerous due to the odd centre of gravity and that the consequences of falling off one or being involved in an accident on one are far worse than a bike. When you fall off a bike you put your feet down - I suspect when you fall off an e-scooter it is your arm that tries to break your fall as your feet are on the footplate - which might explain why more people are being admitted with injuries (many of which seem to need surgery).

I believe any motorised vehicle should require a licence and insurance to operate. The fact you can go and jump on one of these things with no training is ludicrous and I am not surprised there has been a marked increase in admissions as the result of accidents. I still can't fathom why TFL and our council think they are a good idea to encourage e-scooters as a form of public transport - they are, literally, an accident waiting to happen and the NHS will be the ones left picking up the pieces.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Brave politicians would try to find a > resolution > > that appeases everyone > > There is no compromise that will ever appease the > rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante > at any cost. They do not see the problem and are > not willing to accept any restraint on their > desire to drive anywhere at any time. > https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPa > kBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/ > 2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg > > If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on > LTNs (something that would come as some surprise > both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual > Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then > OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian > Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says > NO!" > https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardia > n/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian- > Paisley-007.jpg Perhaps more importantly there is no sign of any compromise from the council and councillors who thrust this ludicrous and harmful scheme on the residents of Dulwich. The longer it goes on the more maddeningly and foolishly entrenched the councillors become, somehow deludong themselves that there is some good coming from this yet the overwhelming evidence shows the complete opposite. I read with interest that Cllr Newens (predictably) has begun the blame game by pointing the finger on the failure of the measures she helped introduce at Lambeth and TFL. Weak politicians who are backed into a corner always look for someone else to blame and alsmost inevitably end up incriminating themselves even more when they do so. I am sure, come May when the inevitable happens we will see a raft of "solidarity comrade" type messages from those councillors who survive the council elections to those who do not. Pretty soon Cllr Williams will start to worry that there might be a cull of councillors across the borough happening under his watch and that might get attention of Labour HQ - and the type of attention that could hinder his polticial aspirations. That's when he will start showing any sort of leadership on tbe issue.

I think a lot of people are following the rather poetic phrase: I can't wait till May, When I can finally have my say!

Well I suppose the political future of our councillors depends on whether their mutual admiration society is bigger and more galvanised than our one. But, in my books, politicians are supposed to be the catalyst for creating a meeting of minds amongst constituents not driving a wedge between them. Brave politicians would try to find a resolution that appeases everyone rather than seemingly celebrate the fact a huge swath of the electorate are being ignored per Cllr McAsh and that his "comrades" are brave for continuing to do so - maybe that is modern day Marxism for you!

Labour seems to have lost all sense of constituent empathy. As they did at the last general election they have become dangerously disconnected from the voting public, are putting their own ideology ahead of everything else and becoming a liability to themselves and all that Labour represents. You would have thought they would have learnt some lessons from the Corbyn disaster.

Ha ha, come May some of their political careers may succumb to constituent pressure......bravery fast becomes foolishness at the ballot box!

A discount on parking permits and their own fleet of EVs....my that will move the needle and encourage people to buy that electric car won't it......? You mention installation of on-street charging points....there are so few of them around it's laughable - I think there are fewer of them than the bike hangers that the council so needed to install to facilitate modal shift. The council could be doing so much more to provide the infrastructure to support the move to electrification - every lamp-post and parking spot on streets could easily have electric charging points. Until such time people will live in a state of permanent range/charging point anxiety and not make the switch to electric cars and it will remain the domain of those with off-street parking in front of their homes. I am afraid the council seem to have drunk way too much of the "all cars are bad" kool-aid since the article you link to was published in 2017. A lot of that narrative has been forced down their throats by the cycle lobby and seemingly (and publicly) they now seem to think that electrification is a bad path to follow. I agree they don't solve congestion but they do help solve pollution issues - an electric car in congestion is far, far less polluting than a petrol or diesel car in congestion - and isn't the pollution problem the one that we are all focused on trying to resolve?

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It feels to me that the only thing that is going > to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there > is a powerful disincentive to drive for private > journeys that could be completed by active travel > or public transport, and that seems to be > happening. The LTN's are part of a package of > other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced > road space because of cycle lanes that might make > people think twice about jumping into the most > convenient form of transport ever devised. > > In the north of the borough I've noticed a > complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of > people's transport choices - there are huge > numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually > been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking > their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That > never happened before. > > Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see > how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to > 'return as they were' is really going to change > anything. I completely get that people are opposed > to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and > some posters here don't own a car. However I would > have thought that that oppositional energy would > be better directed at finding ways of reducing > private car journeys rather than getting on the > Council's back, who are at least trying to so > something. But there is no evidence to date that the LTNs are doing anything to reduce car use or congestion is there - but there's compelling evidence that they merely divert the traffic elsewhere and create more congestion - I refer you to the GSST sponsored report. And those LTNs within the GSST report are in the north of the borough - an area where PTAL scores are much higher in the south of the borough. So maybe, the "slowness" for Dulwich to catch on has more to do with the fact there are not viable alternatives to travel through and across the area - LTNs were doomed to fail in Dulwich. And this whole get off the council's back and put your efforts into supporting the council is a bit laughable; especially considering the council steadfastly refuses to engage with anyone other than Southwark Cyclists or Living Streets on the matter. In fact, they seem to be going out of their way to avoid engaging with any constituent actually having to live with the LTNs. I am intrigued what these other measures in the package are; ULEZ is a TFL initiative and Southwark have done very little in terms of segregated bikes lanes. I would also challenge you on your assumption that the motor car is the most convenient form of transport ever devised, it's not by a long way - cars cost a lot to buy, own and run. I think the bike trumps the car in the most facets of the most convenient category! It's just that, for some reason, people choose the car over the bike.

Some councils have also put them at a 90 degree angle from the kerb so that two cars can be charged. Isn't the government initiating a broad electrification plan? Maybe Southwark will start rolling out infrastructure when they have someone to blame!! ;-) It is worrying how blinkered some of our councillors seem to be towards EVs, regurgitating the "what about the brake dust narrative" sold to them by the cycle lobby.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - Rockets - I have just read that Twitter > thread - so is Southwark saying that their are > 'neighbourhoods' who deserve clean air and then > Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Croxted Road and East > Dulwich Grove are not 'neighbourhoods' so we can > just suffer pollution, inequality and more > traffic? > What is all this Village business??? I am a City > dweller - My parents lived in a Village - > shudder.... It appears to be the pre-cursor for the 15 minute city narrative. Of course, in many ways they are correct that Southwark is a collection of interconnected villages but theym ignore/fail to use their own data to determine the viability of 15 the minute city narrative. If you look at the 2018 TMS report on Dulwich the overwhelming majority of journeys to and from Dulwich are to/from neighbouring and non-neighbouring boroughs - which makes the 15 minute city narrative a non-starter. Granted, people can shop locally etc on foot and bike (which Dulwich folk do already - 68% of local journeys blah blah blah) but their lives extend beyond a 15 minute door to door radius - unfortunately much of that is dictated by the sprawling nature of London and without a massive and fundamental upheaval of the public transport system in the area the car will always be the first choice. It's one of the reasons that there is zero reduction in car ownership within the boundaries of LTNs - people may cycle their kids to school or walk to the local shops but they keep their cars for longer journeys.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to > > read up on a few things. Southwark have > previously > > said they want to reduce car usage by 50% > across > > the borough. > > > > That would be a brilliant thing to achieve, in my > opinion - would you not agree? > > How we get to that point, plus the efficacy, costs > and externalities, etc of the efforts to date are > all up for discussion of course. Brilliant but not at all realistic. Far more realistic would be reducing fossil fuel car use by 50% but the council seems to be doing nothing to encourage the electrification of cars which seems like the most realistic, pragmatic and achievable goal to have a massively positive impact on emissions and air quality. They seem to have been brain-washed by lobby groups that brake dust etc is a reason not to pursue an electrification strategy.

Out manoeuvred by Boris and alienating themselves from their own constituents...this isn't going to end well. And yet Southwark still give more voice and influence to vested-interest lobby groups than their actual constituents......

DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to read up on a few things. Southwark have previously said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across the borough. What frustrates me in all this is that there is a crying need for more cycle storage on Lordship lane yet the council are turning precious pavement space on Lordship Lane (in front of Superdrug) over to electric scooter companies rather than installing more bike storage themselves - and I am sure the motivation for that is that electric scooter companies will pay handsomely for the space due to the gold rush to try and establish their businesses whilst bike storage requires council money.

Has the sign vandal been out plying their trade again - I read that a lot of signs were been pulled down and thrown in people's gardens again yesterday.

Given the amount they have spent on them already and the fact they are not delivering I think we are all being financially penalised by the LTNs already.....with Southwark there's always someone else to blame.....accountability isn't their strong point

And it is telling that the GSTT report comes to a very different strategic conclusion than the council's own report on Dulwich LTNs - I know Cllr McAsh is trying to claim that an independent analyst firm did the Dulwich report but there is a huge gap between the detail, transparency, methodology and authenticity of the GSTT reports and the Dulwich reports and I suspect Southwark told the company they used what conclusion needed to be reached and that they needed to find the data to support the rational that the LTNs were a good thing. The council have dug themselves such a deep hole with the Dulwich LTNs that I suspect they are struggling to find a way out - which is why, despite Cllr Williams' promises to contrary, that the council has not released the raw data or methodology - because they know that their numbers won't stand up to scrutiny. And, typical of all politicians, they realise that transparency this deep into the mire might cost people their jobs/political reputations so they try to snake their way out of it. The next stage of the process will be the "blame someone else to protect myself" and I suspect that will come as we near the council elections in May as councillors fight to retain their seats.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The idea that we all > > become locked into our own locales, traveling > no > > more than we can walk or cycle...which 70 years > and more of real > > life have told me is not something to be wished > > for. > > You are criticising an idea that you yourself have > invented and that no-one (Swedish or otherwise) is > proposing. DKHB - you are obviously not aware of the 15-minute City concept being touted by the mayor of Paris and by many in London as the solution to all our woes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

Scooters are indeed a new way to travel but they are inherently dangerous and I suspect, unfortunately, that there will be a debate on their continued usage after A&E figures get published. The same has happened in every city where they have been rolled out. In Berlin and Munich they had huge issues with increases in A&E admissions, drunk driving on scooters and abandoned e-scooters when they were first introduced. Paris has reduced their maximum speeds and has been threatening to ban them following a series of accidents and incidents. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57664420 I really can't see how the issues experienced elsewhere won't be repeated here and I find it amazing that TFL and councils are happy to roll these out fully aware of the issues across Europe.

July 2021 Cllr Williams: "Clearly there are questions about methodology and just about people being able to be clear what methodology we're using, is it accurate, is it transparent?" "So we've done some work to present that, but we absolutely take away there's more to do to make sure everyone's clear on the numbers - where they've come from - so that you can have trust and faith in them." November 2021....still waiting..... Cllr McAsh - your constituents aren't requesting more data, just the raw data and a explanation of the methodology used to create the numbers the council put into their report. It seems that when people start looking more deeply the numbers don't add up so they are, quite rightly, asking the council what methodology was used to generate the numbers they have presented. Cllr McAsh given there are some glaring errors in the report (Cllr Andy Simmons has told residents that the claim of a 61% reduction in traffic along Turney Road should have actually been reported as a significant increase) would you support, in the name of full transparency, the full report being republished and methodology shared? Maybe this would be a good opportunity for a cross-ward public meeting where all of the local councillors shared this with their constituents so there can be no doubt as to the validity and reliability of the data being presented and some faith in the process can be restored? This could be an online meeting but you really need to re-enable the chat function as a matter of urgency as the optics of disabling the function are not at all good as it appears you are just trying to mute anyone who wishes to voice an opinion. BTW at which meetings did things deteriorate on the chat as I attended a lot of them and nothing untoward was said on either the Dulwich Hill or Goose Green ward meetings?

The report does break down actual numbers to support the % figures so there does seem to be an element of granularity to their reporting.