mr.chicken

How much money are you claiming she has personally pocketed as a result of this?

In as much as comedic levels of bias are a "value judgement". In other words: not. Ah yes all those non existent pro CPZ people who the council nefariously persuaded to turn up to the CPZ meeting despite, as we've well established now, not actually existing. 🤔

This is like saying all climate change researchers are activists and shouldn't be involved in any of the discussions because they almost all know climate change is happening and have the activist opinions that (a) it will be bad and (b) we ought to do something about it. The research is quite clear: more cars will not improve the city and 9,000 people or so die a year in London due to pollution. In the real world, not all opinions are equally valid. And a middle ground between a rational position and an absurd position is still an absurd position. @heartblock: remind me where's the industry award you got for overturning decades of research on induced and reduced demand?

TL;DR: no.

Yep you sound like a reliable unbiased narrator giving a trustworthy and actuate account. 😂

Out of interest, have you published your research? Induced demand and its converse (reduced demand) has been well established in traffic engineering circles for decades now and quite widely studied. If you've managed to overturn several decades of research at a stroke, you'd make quite a name for yourself in the field, you might even bag one of ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineerings)'s annyal prizes for outstanding work. Maybe even invited to be a fellow, because it would be such groundbreaking research.

The daily mail is an untrustworthy propaganda rag with a massive amount of slant and a small amount of accuracy. Just look at the incredibly silly list of buzzwords in the URL. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit "woke" in there too, and maybe something about bathrooms.

No. Next question?

A a small number of people with strong feelings shouting down everyone else in the meeting does not mean there are over all strong feelings against the CPZ. This isn't a rageocracy.

We should ban anyone with a car because they have a vested interest. Also anyone with a bike because they have a vested interest too. Honestly I'm a bit suspicious about pedestrians: I think they might have pre conceived opinions about being run over or breathing bad air which would bias them. But we should certainly and I mean 100% absolutely ban anyone with knowledge because they might use it! It's like those disgusting cancer researchers benefiting from all those research grants about cancer taking it out on the poor tobacco industry. Talk about bias!!

They saw that they just scraped a win in Uxbridge: a seat which has been very solidly conservative for over 50 years. It's a Tory talking point that they won because of the ULEZ, one which Starmer has been repeating uncritically. Though given his position is "I'm just like the Tories but not as bad so vote for us", it doesn't do his personal position any harm to simply adopt their points as his own. I actuality, the pro ULEZ green party gained votes and the lib dems who have been very lukewarm towards the current plans lost votes. It's possible that without ULEZ labour would have won. It's also possible that if Starmer had any identifiable policies, then Labour would have won. Either way we don't know but that doesn't mean the vacuum of knowledge should be filled with Tory invented facts.

I love the anti doing-anything-at-all conspiracy theories. No one supports the CPZ! The only possible way supporters could be there is if the council "tipped off" a bunch of people who (and this is important to note) do not exist about a public meeting which had been advertised and widely circulated. Oh, those sneaky underhanded councillors! Whatever will they think of next?!

The Tories are setting up cars and environment as another culture war. The majority of people in the country, but not notably in London drive cars. Sunak knows votes in London, especially boroughs like Southwark are worthless to him, so it doesn't matter to him how much harm he does here. He's trying to score points to get more votes in marginal districts by sticking it to those London wokeist liberal elites after your cars. It's only interesting in as much as "interesting times" are interesting.

And here we go! Yep, dedicating 1 or 2% of existing completely free parking space to bikes is definitely somehow invoking the "vast majority". 4.6% of journeys in southwark are by bike, and you're objecting to dedicating maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 car parking spaces to bikes. 3 is a pretty small number. Cars take up way more space compared to bikes than you think. Well that's just hypocritical. First you complain that dedicating 1 in 50 spaces to bikes is assuming that "all, or the vast majority, of Dulwich residents would optimally choose to cycle" while simultaneously admitting 100% that it's not in fact enough for that. You're somehow complaining that dedicating a small fraction of parking spaces to bikes is simultaneously both too much and too little at the same time. I though uber owned Lime, meaning Lime were doing a good job of helping the cash drain. That's not actually the case despite the "uber by lime" branding, but Uber own a significant part of it and have some partnership. Lime however is not profitable (except in EBITDA which ignores the cost of all the bikes, basically), so if they go under, it will harm Uber. So think of it as having rides funded by a bottomless well of silicon valley cash or your little bit to help drag the never profitable uber to its eventual demise. I'm being a bit facetious but you get the point.

I reckon the council could, say, ensure that no (or say 99% of) postal address is more than 1 minute walk from a cycle parking bay, by giving over a very small fraction of street side parking to bikes rather than cars. They only need to start with painted bays, since the self hire bikes all have stands. It would be then reasonable to demand all such bikes are left in bays. Huge uphill struggle though because dedicating 1% of car spaces would be portrayed as a war on motorists and receive incredibly stiff opposition making it vastly more expensive for the council to implement. The council would often use valuable pavement space rather than some of the absurdly huge amount of space dedicated to cars than whack at that particular hornets nest and get stung with high costs to repeatedly defend a decision that's both reasonable and legal. On the plus side, by using a lime bike you get to kill two birds with one stone: getting to your destination and slightly hastening the demise of uber since they are running at a loss. Win win!

I have no issue with a fixed number of guest days per year. They could also offer trade permits as well. I do question though how much building work the poorest are getting done given that it's generally expensive and most people in that bracket rent rather than own, so can't get their own building work done. I reckon this will hit landlords more than "the poorest". Do you have any numbers?

Induced demand and it's inverse, reduced demand is a well documented phenomenon, with many studies and scientific papers. Where's it's been studied thoroughly locally, it has been seen that boundary road traffic is down relative to the control. You are going to need more than anecdotes to overturn decades of traffic engineering and urban design knowledge especially as it transpires London isn't super special in this regard. I used to cycle in London a lot in the 90s, would go from New Malden to Epsom Downs and Banstead. I left London and when I returned a decade ago (from Cambridge where cycling is the primary mode of transport), the roads felt too busy and aggressive for my liking. I saw the recent aftermath of someone killed by a tipper truck in London and realized that it was not for me. The LTNs came along and I started exploring more around by scooter as there were many more less acutely polluted routes. I realized the roads were empty enough for my liking so I bought a new helmet and hopped on a Lime bike. I'm now in the process of restoring my old and much loved bike from a decade of storage. It needs (among other things) a new front wheel. Maybe I'll bite the bullet and replace the forks again so I can get disc brakes on the front. Undecided. ETA: probably the instigating incident was needing to get to Waterloo when the trains to London Bridge were bad. I realized I could cycle along the North Bank along an entirely segregated cycle way, so I tried it. I put 2 and 2 together then and that's when I really realized the LTNs made cycling safe enough for me.

Yeah you were. You're moving the goalposts so quickly, I'm surprised you haven't violated causality by now. I as a resident who does not live on many LTNs benefits from those LTNs. Residents on the boundary roads of LTNs benefit from lower traffic than they'd otherwise see. We all benefit because the number of polluting car journeys is reduced because pollution sticks in the bowl shaped region in which London sits but doesn't stay put to your road. Some of the LTN residents are however unhappy because they (and I'm talking about people who can walk easily) have to walk places which are eminently walkable. The trouble is, you don't actually read what people write. If you'd actually read what I wrote you would know the answer to this. I already stated it multiple time. If you care to know, you can find out by actually reading my posts.

Just how many places do you think I live in, Rockets? I benefit from the Melbourne Grove LTN, the one down Railton Road to Brixton and all the ones along CS25 an roads nearby which make the route safe and easy to cycle.

If that's the reasoning I need to agree with you it would be astoundingly daft of me to agree with you.

I am near there. My road is not especially affected either way since it was never a particularly good really a cut through. The roads nearby have got quieter and so less polluted. The reception is mixed. If you take the obvious public response, then the reception looks strongly, uniformly against. Due to the strident stance of the lobby organisations (One Dulwich dn't mince their words...) and aggressive local response, and the strong anti-LTN actions of some of the locals (engine oil in the planters, smashing the planters, that kind of thing not to mention lots of strong words from people you need to live next to), no one has been prepared to say they are for them publicly. I do know a few of my neighbours who are strongly for the LTNs and we only found out after carefully sounding each other out. Though given I've seen my neighbours getting out of their car in the park to take their dog for a walk, I'm not especially sympathetic to the point that they want driving to be easier. ETA: if no one tells you they like LTNs it could be no one does or it could be that you're not talking to people who do or it could also be that people don't feel comfortable telling you. I know from experience the latter exist. And I'm one of them.

A typo is what it is. Hire bike. Why would I think that? That would be pretty silly of me to do so.

How can you possibly know they are not? You are acting as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis and is true by default until everyone else proves beyond unreasonable doubt that the opposite is true. You have no evidence that the majority are not in favour of the LTN.

No.

@Rockets, @Spartacus , enjoying a good tag teaming? Which one of you is going to use the chair? It's not my job to spend hours doing research to answer a question you're not remotely interested in the answer to. If you wanted to know you could use your own time and brains to figure it out. It's not the epic own you seem to think it is that I'm not wasting a lot of time so you can ignore then answer, move on to the next thing maybe make up new porkies about me. Something you've both done. I'm assuming of course you're talking about traffic numbers, neither you nor Spartacus are very clear on which question you're both weirdly sore about.