mr.chicken

Do you deny saying that? So tell me where have I ever tried to claim it's a golden panacea? I have not and you know it. So it is a lie that I've tried to claim that. Pants on 🔥 Which question? If it's the one about other cities, why should I? It has nothing to do with the CPZ, and even without that, I'm sure Rockets can answer his own question rather than outsource it to me. Or you could show a spark and answer it yourself, preferably on a relevant thread.

@Rockets and @Spartacus seems that both of you have adopted the Conservative and American Republican strategy of pointing and shouting that your opponent is doing something in an attempt to make people not notice that you're doing it. @Spartacus We've already been round this loop, but looks like you've conveniently forgotten so you can keep asking the same questions over and over again. You paraphrased me as saying the CPZ was a panacea, something which I have never said or said anything even remotely similar to. And lies from Rockets too. I've answered plenty of stuff. I simply didn't happen to answer this particular question of yours within an hour. Tell me what why don't you do the legwork and answer your own question? But before you do, a lack of knowledge doesn't mean "the LTN did it".

As someone who's wildly misrepresented me to the point of outright lying, that's a bit rich don't you think?

I'm assuming you're talking about CEOs as in Civil Enforcement Officers, the officers formerly known as "traffic wardens". The ones covered by this legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/contents#sch7 It's not 100% obvious to me that cycling on pavements is within their jurisdiction. Their powers are specified, so to confirm you'd have to find the law which matches up with not cycling on pavements and find if they have the legal power to enforce it. I don't know and I reckon you don't either but feel free to post chapter and verse to confirm it. I'm interested either way. But the thing is CEOs aren't free. So what would you pull them away from to do your enforcement of not cycling on the pavement.

I'm getting the impression with the surfeit of winkys that you believe you have scored a point or won some sort of argument. I'm at a complete loss as to what you think you have even scored a point on.

You're using a weird mishmash of words which makes it very hard to follow. Are you talking about community police, (PCSOs) or referring to CEOs as "community police". I am labouring very hard to try and get you to make a clear, concrete point you but you are really not making it easy. PCSOs are run by the MET, CEOs probably don't have the jurisdiction to tackle cyclists on paths. Not 100% clear, but But also: your solution to enforcement without reducing coverage elsewhere is "more volunteers"?

So they don't have a mandate to not do something they didn't promise to do? You may have not noticed, but as of the election the LTN was already there.

I feel at this point I could wear an "I ❤️ LTNs" T-shirt and cycle around East Dulwich (on the pavement for extra attention) and I'd have some people who I shan't name telling me to my face that I don't in fact like LTNs.

I voted for Labour precisely because of the LTN. They put it in, and gave no indication they'd remove it. I can argue that people voted for it because I am a person and I voted for it. I was able to use basic deductive reasoning to deduce that Labour would not in fact unexpectedly rip it out when their main competition had that as a flagship policy. I voted for something that was "not even mentioned". I. Me. I am a real live actual person. You are trying to tell me I don't exist. Does that not strike you as absurd? Of course not because it's an axiom that everybody hates LTNs therefore anything pro LTN must have an alternative explanation such as people being morons and not being able to employ basic reasoning about the party in power and its actions versus one promising to rip it all up, grand conspiracies, the cycling mafia etc etc etc. Looks like I can add "only nonpersons like the LTN anyway" to the list of reasons why every person hates the LTN.

Again with not answering the question. Do you not understand the question or do you understand but would rather deflect and prevaricate than admit you might not be right about this? Never mind that police is the remit of the MET not southwark... But what you refuse to ever say is what do you want the police to stop policing in order to get mote of them on the beat. And the CEOs, are you suggesting they're not busy right now? If not, what do you want them to stop policing instead. And if you want more, what will you cut the budget to in order to get more of them. It's all very well and good saying someone should do something (yet again!), but that means the someone has to not do something else. You appear to be incapable of saying what that should be. The thing is I know exactly why you won't answer the question. It's because just about everything else is more important than this particular storm in a teacup and if you commit to not policing something else, it will be entirely obvious that the transfer of resources or personnel would be absurd. And you don't want to admit that the problem is simply not big enough to be a priority to anyone including yourself right now.

I specifically said "like" before the quotes indicating it was a paraphrasing not an exact quote. Perhaps ambiguous if you're inclined to always take things the worst possible way, but you've managed to use your faux outrage as an excellent excuse (after the tone policing and derailment) to not actually answer my question. Repeatedly. My paraphrasing is entirely fair. You said: " I think we can possibly take a look at PSPOS and CEOs.". Don't dangerously overcommit there first mate! Perhaps you should qualify it as "I think we can possible maybe take a look at PSPOS and CEOs." Anyway anyone want to bet a fiver that @first mate won't actually say anything concrete and declare unambiguously what he'd be happy to divert resources from in order to police those scofflaws on two wheels. I feel I should insist that the concrete solution needs to be one the council is even vaguely able to do something about, so no budget increases and nothing that requires new laws from the central government.

The tactic of blaming contractors when a company sets up incentives which will cause accidents is unfortunately not uncommon. The relatively high number of sadly fatal tipper truck accidents are a result of this. Amazon do it too, having an army of contractors for delivery which are tightly enough controlled that Amazon get the deliveries how they want but loose enough to disclaim responsibility when the inevitable accidents happen due to the incentive structures.

They put them in in the first place. Did you expect them to say "we're not intending on massively reversing an incredibly well known policy" in the manifesto? What other non-changes would you also want them to have? Yep keep pretending the lib dems don't exist. If you pretend hard enough maybe we'll forget that they campaigned as anti-LTN and also lost votes. People didn't want to get rid of the LTNs that's why they voted for the party that (a) put them in and (b) didn't say they'd remove them.

Right, thanks for confirming you never gave such information. I specifically said "policing" not "police" and you're criticising me because you mean "policing" not "police". That's a devastating rejoinder 🤣 🤣. Surely no lycra mafia mob pavement cycling scofflaw Illuminati could repel debate firepower of that magnitude! There's a lot of forum traffic and I was willing to admit I may have missed the post, since I was on my phone. But you won't actually say in concrete what you want to be policed less. What specifically do you think is less important and therefore needs less enforcement? I don't mean the kind of vague generalities you always post like "oh some of those people should...". If you're to enforce the rules on cyclists using existing staff, other rules will be enforced less or not at all. Which ones?

Rockets, you're clearly not an engineer. I am. I would recommend not cosplaying one. But since you're here, the difference is between vibration induced damage and resonance. Soldiers are told to break step in case they hit the resonant frequency of the bridge. That causes it to resonate like a plucked string which can cause rapid failure. This is what a resonating bridge looks like (in this case aerodynamic effects put in energy at the resonant frequency): The failure is rapid. Vibration induced damage, the kind you get from for example having heavy vehicle traffic over a bridge which was not designed for it is a completely different mechanism. As with all things where engineering goes bad there are multiple causes. A weird design. Heavy use of wrought iron and cast iron instead of steel. Poor maintenance caused by politics. Damage caused by the IRA and various spinoffs. Excessive pollution causing acid rain and the resulting corrosion over many years. Global warming. And of course much heavier traffic than it was designed for. Fortunately inspections did not fail meaning it is a mere inconvenience rather than a deadly disaster. It is likely that if some of those were missing, the bridge would be OK. But you can't absolve heavy traffic of the problem. Well, OK you can because you are clearly incredibly pro motor vehicles, but it's irrational and also incorrect to do so.

East Dulwich I can't find it: I mean specifically what would you stop or reduce policing of to free up officers of some description to police cyclists. Unless you have some hard numbered on how much time is spent there, this sounds like another anti council rant. It's ok rocks, we heard you the first 400 times or so. You hate the councillors. Also cyclists. Still trying to wrap my head around that one to be honest!

Wow @first mate you really don't like bold text do you? 😆 Anyway you spent so much time tone policing that you forgot to talk about the actual policing. So I'm asking you, not vague generalities of which you are so fine but since you [not bold] specifically want to assign more resources to tackle scofflaw cyclists what would you [also not bold] take resources from. None of those people you want to reassign are sitting idle. So your reassignment means something gets less policed. What in your opinion should get less attention? I'm beginning to think you're an "ideas guy" who comes up with notions and leaves it to others to figure out how to do more with less as it were. Maybe you can try suggesting the police solve more crime and that the NHS should treat people faster. No one's thought of them you see.

They have a huge carrot @Rockets in the form of LTNs. They have made the streets much nicer and safer so for the first time in years I've got on a bike. An e bike from one of those self serve hire companies as it happens. No stick needed just delicious crunchy garden fresh LTNs. And in terms of giving away space, the fire bikes take about 0.0000001% of the free space given to cars. Hey wait a minute! Isn't that weird that so much area is just given away? Someone ought to do something about that 🤣

You argue London is too big, I offer an example of a sprawlier more appears our town. You argue east dulwich specifically is too hilly, I give examples in Switzerland which makes dog kernel Hill look like a molehill. How is that generalizing? Honestly I'm actually happy to play whac-a-mole with concerns provided they are genuine concerns and moot concern trolling. It's not entirely obvious that cycling can be a major form of transport in apparently adverse conditions. I didn't realise for example it was practical in snow covered paths at 20 below, but turns out intuition is not perfect. The residents of Oulu have little problem with it. The hire bikes are heavy, normal ebikes aren't nearly so heavy especially with the battery removed. Cycle hangars are a quite reasonable option which the council is able to install and are relatively inexpensive. And as for cost: compared to what? The alternative we're taking about is cars. The average annual ruining cost is £3500 per year, and that's not excluding purchase and depreciation. You could get a lot of bike for only £1750 per year. Bikes, even expensive fancy cargo e bikes are vastly cheaper than cars. @Spartacus eh? What are you taking about? You're being more incoherent than usual. I'm kind of impressed that's even possible 😉

Well quite. And also: it takes it from "diving is a right" to "I have a right to drive specifically here", which is not and has never been true. One can't drive through my house for example. Or if you insist on something public, you can't drive through the houses of parliament either. Or something at road level too: well you can't drive on pavement. Or through pedestrianised areas, or the wrong way down a one way road or right through a no right turn filter. Or down the hard shoulder. It seems some people think the "right" to drive wherever you want. That's really really bizarre because it has never been true.

Argh you are right brain went missing there. I don't know anything about Malmo! The city is Oulu in Finland. And here's the needed citation: Oh and before you trot putt a repeat of the excuse that London is too hilly (lol!!!) turns out people also cycle in Switzerland. I look forward to the excuse about how it's too big to constitute to Switzerland amma too hilly to compare to somewhere marginally flatter. I notice that the excuses are along the line of: if you can't find a city that is identical to London in all respects then it's impossible to have any informed decisions about urban planning. Those excuses hold water about as well as Thames water's sewage system.

You are arguing that London is unique in the people don't follow the normal incentives of convenience or cost. And Paris which is a much larger city than Amsterdam has had a lot of success reducing car traffic. Since those efforts are much newer they have been studied less but the results are clear. Plus it's not the size of the city that's relevant, it's the size and density of the local area. I have little reason to every go to Romford, for example so the fact that It's too far by bike is irrelevant. What's relevant is what's nearby and what's accessible. Fun fact, Malmo in Finland which has about the same density as the fake London in Canada and much colder weather then either London in winter has a vast amount of cycling. You can't argue that it is compact like Amsterdam. So why is London different from Amsterdam, Paris and Malmo?

Well @malumbu it looks like the usual suspects have now just resorted to inventing positions for us and vociferously attacking those. Also didn't you know that economics doesn't work in London so it's impossible to reduce the number of cars so we should just give up and have all of them. Sure you will 😉 Well established models of human behavior suggest that if you make something more expensive and less convenient people will do less of it. And when that's been tried with controlled parking in another city, people did basically what was expected. Amsterdam of course started it's anti car, pro human transport system in the 70s, but despite gales of whining from the car lobby they have built a successful system. We will never improve buses here if we did nothing.

You know this has been studied, right? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119021001005 I look forwards to hearing why basic human behaviour is different in London because reasons.

It's an expression that's also a lie. Neither me or mal have every represented CPZ as a panacea. Stop lying about my position and then expecting me to defend against your lies.