Jump to content

first mate

Member
  • Posts

    4,870
  • Joined

Everything posted by first mate

  1. It is good that geh has posted his email thread with the council as what he was advised at the meeting and then what they said afterwards seem contradictory.
  2. But each time you say this kind of thing about a thread (you are 'bored'; it is 'tedious') you always come back for more. The title of the thread was about a flawed consultation process, so let's update that to what is going on now on the Melbourne Grove consultation and let this one go.
  3. Rude! I reckon most of us that actually live in the area are heartily tired of the endless roadworks and reconfigurations. The best things would be to give it a rest.
  4. Once more, no, this idea that the cycle lane was there to slow traffic was introduced by Malumbu and backed up by you. Rockets and I commented on this and said we had not heard of that before.
  5. I also see a broad range of people using it, just they are not on bicycles. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but at the very least it would have been helpful to see that Strava data.
  6. This is so completely disingenuous. They 'believe' there will only be a little bit of displacement, which they also 'believe' will not cause further parking issues. I wonder if there is a legal test for CPZ imposed to 'fix' parking pressure that then causes parking pressure on the roads close by? The council are gaslighting us.
  7. I drive up that hill regularly and rarely see a cyclist, not even an e-bike/motorcyclist. But if a sports group was going up most weekends, at a time others are not really about, I can see how the numbers would stack up. It could be the same club and same people, each weekend. Anyway, guess we'll never know.
  8. I was aware that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes. That is why I asked if Strava data or similar accurately show cycle lane usage over a short distance, like Sydenham Hill, or do they simply indicate the amount of journeys up and down the hill, whether in the cycle lane or in the wider road space? Aside from that, I'd imagine this is a hill climb relished by local cycle clubs etc so it would be interesting to know if data for that small section is spread evenly throughout the week and year, or instead there is greater frequency on say early weekend mornings? It's meant to slow the traffic. Narrows the road, so naturally slows the traffic. That is because before it was a race track up to the cameras. Much nicer now. Expand Snowy, may I also just draw your attention to one of Malumbu's earlier comments in response to another poster ( Malumbu's comment below Jazzer's, above)
  9. Oh yes, I remember now there were question marks as to why Underhill was not being monitored. Had forgotten that.
  10. Ex Dulwicher said: Even the most basic look on Strava, the fitness tracking app, shows tens of thousands of rides along there Does Strava differentiate between use of road and of cycle lane?
  11. @Earl Aelfheah Once more, I responded to a comment made by Malumbu, followed up by you. Malumbu said: "Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane. It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect. Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking." and Earl said:"It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. Confusingly, you then not only attributed the observation about that cycle lane to me rather than Malumbu but you also to contradicted yourself by saying: Earl said "I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct" Earlier, you had said " It's meant to slow traffic".
  12. March, if you have access to the original consultation document - and it sounds as though you do- can you share it, please?
  13. You implied that I had come up with a conspiracy theory about cycle lanes being used to control speed, when, as your own words and Malumbu's words indicate, controlling speed was indeed an intended consequence of installing a cycle lane. Or are you now disagreeing with that? Also, it was Malumbu that first raised this idea at all, not me. Above is a reminder of what you said. But the whole cycle lane - is it or isn't it meant to control speed- was also, according to Rockets, erroneously ascribed to him by you and he replied: "please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop - which was specifically called out in the original consultation documents (which of course no-one has been able to locate either despite telling me how wrong I am)."
  14. Hang on, to be accurate you quoted me quoting Malumbu on the cycle lanes controlling speed and then Rockets commented. Malumbu said: "Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane. It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect. Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking." and Earl said:"It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes.
  15. Do you mean exercised or exorcised? Are you trying to say that Rockets is overly agitated or something like that? I don't think we should ascribe emotional states to others simply on the basis they disagree with us? I think given a number of current consultations, Rockets is possibly examining potential flaws in how data is gathered and analysed. This seems a reasonable thing to and there is nothing in his posts that indicates anger or agitation that I can see.
  16. Well, I think you must be right otherwise someone would have by now posted the link to the documents you asked for and which, according to them, they had googled and checked in a few minutes.
  17. Why do you keep saying Rockets is angry?
  18. I was not involved in this from the outset, so had not researched and I certainly made no "judgement". I just expressed an interest in knowing whether a bike lane had been mooted or not, and given March seems to have that evidence I thought they would share it. Why would you not?
  19. Earl, as I said, I have stated my thoughts on the Peckham Gyratory, thus far. As far as I am concerned I have clarified. It is of course your choice to accept that, or not.
  20. Nothing coy going on, I have stated my position and my thoughts.
  21. The simplest thing would be to share that material. To not share it seems odd if it would settle the question of whether or not a cycle lane was mooted. What is there to gain by not sharing?
  22. You can be in favour of something in principle, hypothetically, in an ideal world. In this instance, some of us also have reservations.
  23. To add, I very much doubt that a collision between a pedestrian and say an e-bike in a pedestrian area would be recorded or reported. Stand to be corrected though.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...