first mate

James Barber historically a prime mover re CPZ, double yellow lines everywhere. Also, I think, at one point on Southwark Cyclists committee. Not sure I would trust him on LTNs. He has been very quiet on the subject.

In which case, there have always been volunteers to do speed testing with handheld devices, why not pollution monitoring? Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, lets put a person on every street to do the > counts, 24/7 x 365, shouldn't cost a lot > > You don't need a census when there are perfectly > good and valid sampling methodologies. The rubber > strip traffic counts are good at estimating the > number of vehicles passing on a road, and were > designed for issues such as congestion, but they > offer nothing to pollution studies. It is quite > wrong to suppose that any general view of > different types of traffic across London (diesel, > petrol, plug-in hybrid, self generating hybrid, > full electric) would apply to a particular locale > and time. > > And air quality sampling does not require the sort > of very large and costly equipment hypothesised > here. Sampling devices can be hand-held (they do > not need to be permanently installed and > ruggedised) - so long as the sampling programme > properly covers key times and is repeatable. And > although most of the monitors below are for > indoors use, sampling changes of indoor levels is > acceptable if what you are tracking is change - > which is what is key when you are looking at the > impact of traffic rules changes. . > > https://www.architecturelab.net/best-air-quality-t > est-kit/ > > https://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring- > instruments/test-meters/air-quality-meter-kat_1509 > 25.htm > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Air-Pollution-Monitor/s?k > =Air+Pollution+Monitor

No surprise really. MGMP (Concordia) was a disaster, somehow they managed to get this prime site, goodness knows how.

Before you know it large sections of park taken out of general use through much of summer.

Given the building yard existed many,many years before this development the regular damage to the new development by delivery lorries points to poor design by developers (greed) and poor planning decisions by S'wark. The M&S site on Lordship Lane suffered similar issues, where the blindingly obvious shortcomings of the site footprint and access were systematically ignored by developers and planning.

As I read it, Heartblock carefully qualified his/her statement with an 'apparently' made an admission it was seen on twitter and then asked for data. Not, as you say, presenting it a statement of fact. You are either too quick to rush to judgement or not reading carefully enough. goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See you're still trying to discredit renown > academics Heartblock. Not really doing yourself > any favours, we all remember how this went last > time. > > Edited to add - you've also stated something as > fact and then in the very next sentence asked for > data because 'you've only seen it on twitter' - > which I also think we've been through before in > that just because you've seen 'something on > twitter' it doesn't' make it true.

Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness!

"Vibrant, exciting"... run for the hills! Visions of the ?10,000 NX rd mural spring to mind (the one that looks like a nursery school reception).

Indeed. In the case of CPZs the council ripped up its own policy to consult street by street and because the majority of MG were against a CPZ, they divided the street into two to achieve the station area CPZ rollout. I wonder, if they do put a market there, will traders have to turn up on cargo bikes with all their gear? Of course, it also means that for one day only children will be unable to play in the street.

What a slippery statement, R. Are you saying the increase in traffic experienced by HB on EDG is okay or just a fiction? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I see it's the end of half-term and I look out > my > > window to see the 37 bus and an ambulance stuck > in > > a long-line of stationary, idling traffic once > > again. Before the x5 LTNs forcing traffic to be > > funnelled down my high density residential > school > > road, I never noticed the traffic being that > > different between term time and school > holidays. > > Of course I will be told that I'm 'dreaming' > this > > or it's my 'perception', even though I suggest > my > > 35 years of living on the same road...might > mean > > my longitudinal, observation is probably longer > in > > years than some critics age and very valid. > > > > Maybe I'm so old that I must be a UKIP-ing, > > polluting, car-loving one of 'them'. Or maybe > I'm > > a green issue supporting, social inequality > aware, > > longtime campaigner and expert in > cardiovascular > > and respiratory health...I'm sure someone will > > helpfully tell me what I think, who I am and > what > > I really see, very soon. > > Is the school your referring to East Dulwich > Charter? Because just a regular reminder that > traffic around this school has actually decreased. > In fact the entrance is inside the LTN - on > Melbourne Grove - a road on which you're > explicitly calling for an increase in traffic.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/05/revealed-how-london-parks-are-partly-privatised-festivals-wireless-finsbury-park Soylent Green Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've not been to Gala but I have been to X The > Tracks in Brockwell Park and On Blackheath and > loved them both. It's a great way to do a > festival without the camping and these events have > a great community vibe. Let's not forget, every > council has events on their common land for local > people to enjoy. They are not private events as > everyone can pay to attend - a private event would > surely be by invitation only - so it is not > privatisation of common land. Totally support > your right to grumble, but let's let this go > ahead.

If that seems acceptable to you then I would politely suggest you are not aware how Southwark 'manage' their consultations and data. This is just the latest example.

Before you know it large sections of the park could be hived off for private events much of the year. In effect, privatisation of a public space by the back door...by a labour council.

KK, That sounds horrendous. Neither you or your dog are in the wrong, your poor dog was defending himself from an unprovoked attack and you tried to intervene when you saw the other dog would not stop. All the advice is not to intervene because of the risk of injury but in reality who would stand back and let a family member get savaged. It sounds like this man and his dog have form and he was trying to deflect from his own dog's unprovoked aggression by focussing on your behaviour. Is your dog okay? At 13 he is a really old dog and to lose a canine must have really hurt. A vet report on his injuries could be made and given to police and RSPCA. You should maybe also photograph your own injuries, including any bite marks? What sort of age was the other dog owner?

It is appropriate to query data that does not seem to make sense. Rockets has asked some important questions. Thus far, no-one has come forward with a credible response.

I think we can all agree the driver's actions were despicable, dangerous and inexcusable. However, we should not seek to excuse or explain the behaviour of the cyclist either. There does seem to be an almost tribal element to some of this that is really unhelpful, where one element seeks to provoke the other (recent videos of cyclists driving in the middle of the road, turning back and laughing at cars behind them, being one small example). While on my bicycle the other day on a quiet, side street, a car coming the other way deliberately did a mock swerve into and then away from me, causing me to lose balance. That driver was being provocative, I was not in his way. I really think it cuts both ways. Additionally, given the huge amount of public money invested in cycle ways it is arguably another form of provocation not to use them, unless for very good reason.

Still waiting for a response to what Rockets said about data manipulation by council.

In fairness, I think this type of 'pumped up' cyclist has been around for a while. In my mind, they share the same sort of mindset as aggressive motorists. As more of that type of motorist starts to cycle we may see a rise in cyclist road rage. The mindset does not really change, just the mode of transport. In this instance, the cyclist was incredibly provocative but the driver really caused danger to others by throwing a glass bottle that smashed. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of > my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou" > approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like > their approach where they seem to think they are > the only form of transport that should be allowed > to use roads. Many of them talk about driver > entitlement yet display the same signs in regard > to cycling. > > The recent debate around the new Highway Code has > been demonstrating this. There is so much > misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle > and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people > are actually going to get injured as a result. > > For example, the give way to cyclists continuing > ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible > directive but the way it has been positioned by > both sides of tbe argument is actually leading > cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them > as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the > Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle > to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left. > > So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists > in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of > cyclists following - they need to give way to the > left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning > that. > > And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one > hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by > The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory > comments about a vehicle being "specifically > designed to kill children" and continuing his own > "war on cars". > > Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of > the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days > ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door > and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out > and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were > idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy > chastises the driver not the cyclist. > > We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not > the other and I am glad to see some police > starting to police the bad cyclists who are > tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and > there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the > moment I am afraid to say. > > > https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/148827945 > 2001910794?t=si0Egf93POPnEAc4nyqUmg&s=19

There does not appear to be anyone prepared to respond to Rockets assertions on council data? Rx3, DKHB? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Waseley Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As > > someone > > > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot > > it's > > > a little confusing. Your case would be > > stronger > > > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather > than > > > make cheap comments for the pro car > community. > > > > Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a > lot > > of heavy lifting. From previous comments I > suspect > > in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to > be > > corrected. > > > > It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air > for > > all? placards along Dulwich Village, East > Dulwich > > Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways > with > > several large vehicles. But I?m sure that > outside > > their vocal support for more through traffic on > > side streets, they are committed > > environmentalists, as the signs suggest. > > Rahx3 I do not own an SUV and I cycle, in fact you > will probably see me and my family on our bikes > most weekends - so better luck next time on the > character assassination?;-)! > > > > Now, am I wrong in my assertation that the > council's traffic reduction numbers are misleading > as they have not factored in tbe 7.1% > Southwark-wide reduction in traffic caused by the > pandemic? > > Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rx3, have you finally sold your car? Rockets raises some valid points about the council's manipulation of data. What is your response? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waseley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As > someone > > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot > it's > > a little confusing. Your case would be > stronger > > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than > > make cheap comments for the pro car community. > > Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot > of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect > in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be > corrected. > > It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for > all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich > Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with > several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside > their vocal support for more through traffic on > side streets, they are committed > environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

My problem with LDs is under James Barber (also LCC) they were instrumental in trying to push CPZ in early stages..just not sure I would trust them on LTNs etc.. They would need to be very clear about what they would do and why. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door > was imploring people to vote for them locally to > have influence on the Southwark wide picture as > they are saying they are the only party that can > start to call Labour to account at the council > level. > > Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it > from both camps....they created a new "third rail" > for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I > initially thought and I wonder if we might see the > Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards > LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes. > I think Labour are in big trouble locally but, > let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

Interesting you say it is an under-used section? I see it used quite a lot.

Wonder how they will mitigate sound travel? Aside from noise issue, which would not affect me personally, I'd rather use the common than more scenic parts of park, but understand for those who are closer to and use the common this will be a pain. Not sure about the council's stated aim to let out sections of park for many more organised events, as a way to raise revenue, is a great move either.

'The Truss' got lucky. A fortuitous spot of Covid. I'd imagine top contenders for the PM role will want to give Johnson a wide berth for now.

Or is it a case of a privatised company shifting blame onto workforce? nmh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounded like they were posties coming from > elsewhere - to blitz the Xmas backlog. > > Apparently ED posties all got ?5k bonus to move to > Peckham. I asked if the closure of Silvester Road > caused the problem but was told it was the ED > posties attitude. They?ve been taking huge amounts > of sick leave and refusing to clear each other?s > backlogs. That?s why the mail isn?t coming > through. > > Sounds like a truly demotivated and dysfunctional > workforce. The managers are aware of the situation > but are completely ineffectual. It?s almost > impossible (and very expensive) to dismiss posties > - bar for theft and deserting your mail.