first mate

I think the crux of the issue is that most may try to do more bicycle journeys but will also need to keep a car. Doesn't feel like there is room for both in any number, cyclists that also keep a car need a parking space. It is also telling that in Amsterdam bikes are now being viewed as a bit of a menace in the same way cars used to be. I guess that is because there are many, many more bikes than there are here. Yes, we insure our bikes but you know as well as I that bike theft is on the up and insurance will rise accordingly, once companies see an opportunity to make money. I would find it too worrying to leave something that expensive on a regular basis and it would certainly not work for social outings (not that this is an issue in the current climate). It might seem like I am raising one obstacle after another but the devil is always in the detail. The main thrust of LTNs sounds a bit "this needs to be done, not quite sure how but we'll just punish the heck out of a proportion of the populace and make their lives hell until they roll over, and if we 'kill' em in the process, the end justifies the means.

northernmonkey, But can one of these cargo bikes easily fit into a hangar? Especially if there are other bikes in there? Seems like an awful lot of people are going to need cargo bikes in order for something like LTNs to have any chance of working, so the question of storage that is also secure is vital. I would be in a constant state of anxiety a bike like this would be stolen. Ground anchors, CCTV etc..do not offer the necessary level of security around a ?4,000 investment. If most people that have a bike also keep a car, the car being essential for some journeys that cannot be made in other ways, where do all the hangars go? This is the level of detail that needs to be considered and I do not think is. Sorry, so many people have enough to deal with right now, simply trying to earn a living, make ends meet and juggle family commitments without forcing further layers of stress on top. I'd also be more convinced if those leading the 'charge' on LTNs all gave up their cars. But to a man or woman most have admitted they still own, use and keep one. "Your points on bike storage are really important First Mate. I can't describe how disappointing I find the council's new 'consultation' on where bike hangers are needed, it feels like yet another delaying tactic. There are 1000s of people on waiting lists, any new hanger fills up immediately, so its clear that the demand is huge and they should be on every street (with those with more flats or houses with no front gardens prioritised".

northernmonkey, I understand and apologies to Karim if put in an awkward position. I also appreciate the great photos. Frankly, I do not see that unless you have a side passage or a large house and hallway, this would be an easy bike to store and manoeuvre? The other issue is safety outside when left? I'd not want to leave a bike like this for any length of time and that does raise question marks as to how practical it really is? I also note Karim is holding onto his car. It seems like this option works for those with deep pockets, plenty of space at home and, I guess, a limited need to travel much or far to make a living, get children schooled, care for vulnerable relatives...the list goes on. I am open to this but really not convinced. For many this would have to be a complete substitute for a car, not an add on.

LTNBooHoo. Sometimes less is more. Karim, where and how do you store your bike? Apologies if you answered this before, I did not see it. The cargo bike looks too big for a hangar, too valuable to be left outside and too big to be left in the hall of average terrace home. This bike looks like TERN GSD. These are reported as retailing at around ?4000, so storage is important.

Nigello, good points and I wonder if you saw the recent Guardian article indicating a pedestrian upsurge against cycling in the city. It seems as though there, at least, cyclists are starting to be treated in similar fashion to car users here. Again, I think there are very few if any current forum users that do not support reduction of car use and are unlikely to be petrol heads etc.. Those against current implementation of LTNs are signalling that the attendant issues are more complex than is being acknowledged and greater debate/ scrutiny required.

Jooles, that's great and totally support what you are doing. I am holding onto my car because I genuinely need to use it at times. In those instances, car hire/ public transport is not a viable option. Not all the journeys I have to make are feasible by bicycle, the ones that are I do. I suspect this is the reality for many others. It is complex. The current 'solutions' are overly simplistic and actually creating greater problems for some.

It helps to have someone who knows what they are talking about. Thanks for sharing Heartblock. Does there seem to be resistance to replacing planters with cameras, or perhaps S'wark plan to use money made from cameras in DV to fund them elsewhere? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FOI ab29. If you are interested a simple google > will be able to produce all the requests. I also > have contacts in LAS through my profession, but > not able to post anything which is not in the > public domain. But this is, as an FOI for the > scrutiny committee Emergency Services ? Southwark > Experimental Transport Measures > 16/07/2020 > > London Ambulance Service ? London-wide these > measures are happening and > they are not joined up. Our fleet is very fluid > and not from a fixed location. The > nearest ambulance to the emergency wil be called > up to attend. Planters are not > showing up on Satnavs. > The measures are creating delays responding to > calls. Not against principles of > scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower > response times. ANPR cameras > are the best measures and these work for us. Width > restrictions are also a problem. > Ambulances are more likely to use neighbouring > roads. > Metropolitan Police ? Pan-London units wil have > similar issues with SatNavs. > London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road) ? We have a > 6-8 minute attendance time. > Must be mindful of width restrictions. Fire > brigade can also come from further afield > and these measures can have a big impact. We are > heavily under the microscope > due to previous issues. > Metropolitan Police ? We have had to add these > measures in to our risk register. > > If you read through all the DATIX then there are > delays due to physical barriers, one being a > paediatric cardiac arrest. > > I suppose it is upsetting for me, as someone who > used to be part of the on call primary PCI team to > imagine the frustration paramedics and first > responders feel when delayed. > > Very much in favour of reducing car use and > encouraging active travel, but doubt LTNs achieve > either. Seems to causing chaos for many and > increased house prices for the few.

It is interesting to see the various methods adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN supporters- denial of available evidence, persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ claiming there are too many threads, and now defacing posters displayed that are objecting to the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't feel very adult, democratic or like there is a willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > The report ends with a request to make changes due > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays, > that are very concerning and leading to patient > safety concerns' > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard > closures, they consider them to contribute to a > higher risk to life.

Well, so far, this has not been contradicted, so I guess we can conclude it is true. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, is it true as reported, that in Sept 2020 the > London Ambulance Service reported delays to life > threatening emergencies and asked for Southwark > Council to remove the hard closures in Calton, > Derwent and Melbourne? Citing traffic jams on > Grove, EDG and Croxted and no alternative routes.

Ditto! alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James don?t take my labour vote as a sign you are > on the right track. The current LTNs reward > privilege - the wealthy get healthier. The result > of this consultation will determine whether a > lifetime of labour voting will change. I cannot be > alone.

Sounds familiar! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

Great point worldwiser.

"There isn't a simple solution to this which doesn't involve a significant curtailment of the personal freedom to jump in a car and drive the route we want, EVs aren't the whole answer either as will do nothing for road safety or inactivity nor will they encourage active travel without some reduction in the number of vehicles on the road." The impression is that the bulk of the traffic build-up at key times is the result of multiple 'school runs' so this is probably the area that should be examined a lot more closely. Are there ways schools, private schools included, can be encouraged to stop parents driving their children to school? Could private schools be made to facilitate and fund some sort of london-wide chaperone service, whereby children have to use public transport but for safety reasons they are accompanied. Could Southwark Cyclists find bike train volunteers to help children living closer get to and from school on bicycles? Given so many streets are now free of traffic I am interested to know how much of a cycling uptake there has been? Has the bad weather put a lot of people off and, if so, won't this continue to be a factor, especially in winter?

Once more, and you seem resistant to this malumbu, it needs to be re-opened to buses!

Very, very sad to see the shop go and very much hope nor forced out by current economic climate. Will the next incumbent have a similar approach to produce etc, does anyone know?

No, did not think you were suggesting that. It was more a comment on what may or may not be council rules/guidance re dogs barking before 9am and after 9pm, that was all. I think you have every reason to feel annoyed and hope you can sort things out with your neighbours. I also feel sorry for the dog.

I think it would be difficult and pretty unrealistic to completely stop dogs barking before 9am or after 9pm. Dogs bark. It is natural. The only remedy to ensure complete absence of dog barks outside those times would be to ban all dogs. That said, allowing any dog to bark for more than a few minutes at a time is not great. Leaving the dog out to bark for hours on end is outrageous.

What this means is that all the borough and perhaps even london-wide, pro cycling groups and various clean air, anti- pollution and climate change groups will be called upon to respond in force, including their children. Perhaps even babies can have a proxy voice. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Amazing twist on the upcoming consultation (see > the attached document) > > No minimum age for responding to the consultation > and stakeholders both inside and outside of the > Dulwich area scheme are able to respond. > > The cynic in me wonders if, for example, let's say > a school teacher asks his pupils who are outside > of the area to write a response to the scheme as > part of their homework. > > I also have to question how easy it will be to > verify that a person under 18 actually exists, as > they aren't in the electoral register and we've > all heard stories of families incorrectly claiming > things like universal credit for non existent > children. > > Of course I'm not saying anyone would deliberately > manipulate responses but it is open to abuse if > someone was so inclined.

Good grief, you used to actually drive to Oxford Street to shop? I thought that was virtually impossible. Nice bike. How much with all the attachments. What sort of locks do you use and where do you keep it at home?

Where and why do you keep a car at all if you don't use it? LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get out of your cars. > > My husband has a cracked rib. He just left the > house to pick up a battery on his bike. He is > 71. ( the car battery is dead because we never > use it)

We've had others suggesting unless you can cycle to and from work and live your life on bicycles, you should really consider moving. It is this sort of tone deaf approach, riddled with assumptions about needless, unnecessary journeys and innate car user laziness, that is so offensive and blocks constructive discussion. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly John, one LTN at any cost person, told me > it?s my fault for buying a flat on ED Grove and > calling me basically stupid to complain about the > additional traffic. ?You should have bought a > house on a different road 30 yrs ago?. > Unfortunately as a poor junior health professional > coming out of a toxic relationship I could only > afford this flat, as my life became better I > invested and improved my flat and came to love ED > Grove, up until now. Southwark should be reducing > pollution on already bust rds, not increasing > pollution. It?s just gated communities for the > most privileged and we all know it.

Ah, so you don't cycle everywhere then?😉

One of my greatest fears when cycling is actually other cyclists. I've had way more near misses with cyclists than cars. How would you address that? In terms of cycle lanes, slower cyclists can frustrate those on a speed mission. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reduce on-street parking to remove pinch points / > dedicated Bus lanes to prevent cars obstructing > buses and cause delays. Protected cycle lanes (ie > EDG) on main roads and more infrastructure to > enable safe active travel (fear is one of the main > reasons many people who could cycle don't). ULEZ. > Road-pricing. Higher tax on SUVs. Increase fuel > duty. Improve public transport where possible - > which takes time and money. > > Do more not less.

@Raeburn But meantime, you feel morally justified in imposing even higher levels of pollution on some sections of the community?

Slippery answer and does you no favours at all. Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what > you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding > it, just didn't understand what you wanted. > > ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally > used those routes over the years, but would > actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and > unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over > the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't > say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always > seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when > it is clear at night - so has been unattractive > for years. would prefer to take the residential > streets and avoid where I could between Goose > Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is > up/down/same, honest answer. > > I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution > has been bad for years, and that average vehicle > size is notably bigger. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic > on > > these roads has increased massively since the > > closures went in as a direct consequence of > them? > > Simple question??do you think that is > acceptable > > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal > to > > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > > yes?;-)