Earl Aelfheah

@Rockets - yes, I don't think we're disagreeing on what was said. But the conversation starts with the chair laying out what TfL have put forward as the cause of slow bus speeds, and asking the panellists if they agreed (Which they did) and whether there were any additional factors that TfL did not identify. So to highlight the 'additional factors' without mentioning the premise of the question, gives a slightly misleading impression. That's not to say that they don't identify the reallocation of road space as a factor, it obviously is. But it is one additional factor alongside congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations, the mechanical performance of the bus fleet (as are road works). Of course unlike those other factors (the primary factors identified by TfL and addressed in the Travel Watch report), which do nothing to move people more quickly, safely or efficiently - expanded pedestrian areas and protected cycle lanes do.

OK, so you defer to the experts. Fair enough. Those experts have recommended: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them, and Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations I strongly agree with this and would like both applied to Lordship Lane and other major routes. I'm glad that you're not advocating for the removal of cycle lanes. It is very clear that they have been successful in contributing to the sustained, long term trend of increasing numbers of people travelling by bicycle. Yes, the bus driver said these were the two big additional factors in slowing buses. Yes, there has been reallocation of some road space, which of course reduces capacity. That is one of the additional factors (on top of congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet) that will contribute to slower buses. Of course unlike those other factors, which do nothing to move people more quickly, safely or efficiently - protected pedestrian and cycle areas do.

I am not questioning it, just establishing the fact that you have recognised them as experts and suggested that their views should be taken seriously. Great, so do you agree with: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them, and Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations? They were taken as read actually - agreeing with TfL analysis that the primary causes where linked to congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet. They were asked about any additional factors - and pointed out increases in roadworks and reallocation of road space. You have made several different arguments against bike lanes, first bike lanes don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to; Representative from Travel Watch say reallocation of space (including to pedestrians) is one factor in slowing some buses. May we just establish what you're asking to be done about what you appear to consider the 'problem' of bike lanes? Are you calling for cycle lanes to be removed?

The CPZ is completely unrelated to the number of parking spaces, or the pavement width on Lordship Lane. I guess not.

A Honda Jazz is 1694 mm. It's narrower than a Ford Fiesta. A Citroen C1 is around 1620 mm. A Range Rover by comparison is well over 2 metres wide (as are several other car models). You are correct however that cars are getting wider (about 1 cm very two years on average), that's the point; There is no 'safety' reason that they should growing, and when you have cars that are exceeding typical UK parking bay widths and making them challenging for narrow roads, that's a problem

@first mate I genuinely don't understand your point here. Whilst I'm sure what you say is true, the fact is that the CPZ has no impact on parking on Lordship Lane. The fact that I would support widening the pavement and removing some parking, seems completely disconnected with the CPZ proposals. There are lot's of schemes that make no changes to parking on Lordship Lane - must I object to them on the grounds that they're irrelevant? You keep asking me the same questions on this across several threads (which I keep answering). It's confusing and a bit strange. May I ask that you return the same courtesy and clarify your views on Lordship Lane parking, pavement widening and bike lanes? No one has called for cars to be banned.

That's right, weren't you banned for a while?

The experts (your words) from Travel Watch, who appear in the video you've shared, have compiled a report making a list of recommendations. Do you agree with those recommendations (any or all of them)? Do you think cycle lanes should be removed?

Honda Jazz, Citroen C1 etc... there are lot's of small cars in production. It is clearly not true to say that cars have to be big for 'safety reasons'. Higher bonnets are generally more dangerous for pedestrians, especially children, because they hit adults above the centre of gravity (vital organs) and children's heads, increasing the risk of serious injury or death and making them more likely to be pushed under the car rather than over it. Research indicates a 10cm increase in bonnet height significantly raises fatality risk

This is not true. There are still small cars in production and oversized cars are certainly not designed that way to protect pedestrians or cyclists. I have said repeatedly that it is true. I don't understand why you ask me the same questions over and over without apparently listening to the answers. Meanwhile you continue swerving questions that have been posed to you. For example: Do you accept the recommendations of the Travel watch report? Do you think that cycle lanes should be removed? It would be good if you both you and Rockets actually clarified what your view is on these things, instead of just kicking up dust and relying on innuendo.

You're repeating yourself. I've stated numerous times that I support the removal of parking on Lordship Lane. Do you? The CPZ plans (which I have no view on) don't effect parking on lordship lane in any way - which is true of 101 other schemes. You seem to think this is a reason to object to them - that doesn't' make sense.

Really interesting debate - thanks for posting.

That isn't answering my question is it? It's answering a question no one asked you. And yes, you are being slippery.

It's not OK to enquire if someone is OK? I have clearly stated more than once that I support the removal of some parking on Lordship Lane, both to increase the space for pedestrians and also to improve bus passage along the road - so it seems odd that he keeps asking me the same question. Again, are you not reading my posts before asking me questions? Also, is there any chance of either you or Rocks ever answering a question, without posing a different question?

Do you ever answer a straight question, rather than asking another one? The slipperiness is exhausting.