mr.chicken

What question was that, rockets? All I seem to remember is you going on what you just conceded was an attack and then getting a little rude while using winky emojis. Tell what, if you write out the apology you would give (and it must be an actual one) if I link to another post, then I'll link to it. Can't get fairer than that! You only risk actually apologising if you were wrong, so if you don't post, it proves without a doubt you know the link will arrive as a result and that you've been a little less than accurate. 😉

Well Rockets and Spartacus. Let's suppose I post a link. There are a few options which follow: 1. Crickets 2. Victim blaming. As the accused its my job to jump around like a monkey on the demands of the accuser and because I didn't do that it's my fault really. This one has already started floating up. 3. Special pleading. Sure there is a post but it doesn't count for a newly invented reason so really while the accusation was wrong, it was right even if the facts disagree. 4. Not enough. I only linked one post which isn't enough so really I need to dance like a monkey more (see 2). 5. But this other thing. There was something else I did real or imagined which was bad so the accusation was right even though it was not in fact right. 6. A non apology. Along the lines of I'm sorry you feel misinformation about you is a bad thing and anyway you should have stopped us but that doesn't count anyway so really it's your fault. 7. Same mishmash as 6 but without the non apology. 8. A conspiracy theory. I'm in league with southwark Council and used their deceptive traffic measuring ninjas to break into the hosting facility and edit the database to make a false posting history. 9. 😂😂😂 an unreserved apology for making a false claim then doubling down by accusing me of lying about it 😂😂😂. It's hard to write that without an attack of the giggles. Do those cover the choices or would you like to add another? Care to choose an option now just to keep things interesting? 😉 Oh also, the other thing before I forget, would you mind letting me and the rest of the thread know why you think it matters anyway?

Bit of a chicken and egg problem!

Rockets, my good chap, you can invent alternative facts faster than I can rebut them. Why, in defending yourself you invented another yet another! I'm not going... ... hey wait a minute! Have you been doing that with your traffic related facts too? 😉

Well I can tell you're a bit worried about the structural integrity of your current, favorite alternative fact because it looks like you've prepped another one ready to go!

Rockets, I don't think you are actively lying. I think you've done a lazy job and stopped as soon as you find something that confirms your biases. Nonetheless what you are claiming is untrue. Can I expect an apology from you for repeatedly stating something untrue about me? Or when you eventually find the posts you're missing, will you forget this ever happened or find some way to claim they "don't count"? You are acting as such. If people have a car and the wrong opinions, or don't live in Dulwich full time, or even post to a section of the forum which appears to be invisible to you, you attack them for it. Not the arguments or the data, but the person, implying they have no right to an opinion. If I don't stand up about poor and exclusionary behavior, why should I expect others to do so? Personal attacks don't add, all they do is silence voices. Do you have a vested interest too. 😉

Since when are you gatekeeper of the topic? Why do you believe that, say, posting about an interesting animal has and bearing on whether I have an opinion on traffic? And why do you think activity on this forum is the arbiter of contributing to live in Dulwich. It's clear you are better at attacking people than you are their points. But please if you are going to attack me, I'd thank you to not invent a false posting history about me. It's only hypocrisy to you because you adopt wildly extreme views where it'sa war on cars or drivers from people with a deep seated hatred for motorised transport. Therefore a dyed in the wool car hater must be a hypocrite. Trouble is that position is a fantasy of yours, not reality. Efficient transport isn't about hating or loving any one mode of transport. One thing I do know is that the clogged roads are not good for cars, buses, cyclists or pedestrians. You think it's hypocrisy somehow for me to not pick on one of those to hate. I think transport can be better in this city in a way that will benefit everyone. One has to be realistic, cars do not make efficient use of the roads compared to almost anything else. It's not about banning cars and then laughing at the former car owners, it's about providing cost effective, efficient, practical and safe transport options. I don't hate people for using cars. People are going to use the most practical form of transport available. That's fair, and human.

To which cuclists do you refer? I've certainly seen plenty of attacks and demonizing of cyclists. Or are you counting me an an honorary cyclist because I disagree with you on the solutions to transport problems? Can one be a cyclist without actually riding? I don't know what solutions you propose.

It's fruitless trying to discuss with you. You put words in my mouth, deny it then do it again in the following sentence. Then you just parrot the same question over and over, ignoring my answers. Nonetheless, if you respond to what I actually wrote, I will respond and do it in good faith. I'm not going to engage with a fantasy of what you want me to have written.

First mate, you are putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. I get it's easier to argue against an extreme position, but the point isn't simply to argue is it? It is broadly speaking whether the status quo is as good and equitable as things can be transport wise, whether measures are equitable, and whether they improve things. Anyway to this point specifically: What's with the scare quotes around "need"? It sound like you have an underlying point you wish to make, but I don't quite follow what it is. Can you be plain? And what counts as a necessary car journey? Depends what you mean by necessary. I prefer to think of it in terms of what activities people might reasonably wish to do, and what practical ways there are of doing them. People want to shop, commute, go on holiday occasionally, do school runs, visit friends and relatives etc etc etc. All reasonable things which people should be able to do. Did you read the links or watch the videos on the paradox? If you don't know the basics of transport systems design, this conversation won't be especially productive. I'll assume you did. If you're heading out of London for example to somewhere not well served by public transport, a car is going to be the most practical choice in many cases. If you want to move a moderate amount of stuff, well that depends. Cargo bikes can move a lot. A really surprising amount. The Dutch seem able to take a jaunt to a not so local Ikea quite happily on one. For those to be practical, we need better low car routes because being mixed in with thundering huge vehicles isn't safe. Bigger things might need a van. I've had things which would be impractical without a motor vehicle but since I'm not licensed to drive a HIAB, I went for the delivery option. Anyway I own no car. Or cargo bike. I've seen people hit or worse on the roads, and I value my neck. I've exchanged pleasantries with drivers who believe they have more of a right to the road before, but it's not something I wish to do on a regular basis. It's getting to the stage that I think I might be able to repair and use my bike which will make it somewhat quicker to get around than walking. There are no *necessary* journeys in the strictest sense. There are plenty of reasonable ones which people will take. The more of them that are practical without cars the better for everyone including drivers. There aren't that many petrol heads, trainspotters, cyclists or... walkerists? There are just a lot of people who want to be able to go places and do things and most people will take the quickest reasonable method of transport. That's people and you won't change them. As it is it's kind of a pain in the arse to do quite a lot of reasonable journeys because the roads are clogged by cars, so slow by car or bus and dangerous by bike. I know we can do better and there are very few ways to actually do it.

If that works as well as you claim then appears that you failed to do that effectively. Again, why invent this untrue fact? Having trouble with actually debating the topic? Reduced car traffic and pollution, sign me up! I also want the roads to be safe to cycle on, and they're getting there. I entirely support the measures because I believe it will improve life in the area for many. That includes me. Do you think I'd advocate Things I thought would make life worse? As for vested interests: if you don't live in the area then why are you posting here? If you do, then you have a vested interest, just like the rest of us. This has a bit of the ring of "sir please sir he did it first" about it. Even if we accept your claims at face value---something I'm now disinclined to do---you are still lowering the tone of this thread. And apropos nothing you decided to dredge up some bit of the past just to take a dig at a poster when you couldn't rationally rebut his arguments.

Well this thread was pretty free of personal attacks, until you thought to change it, and after lowering the tone you seem to wish to drag it down further: Interesting, you have gone from inventing data to simply making up facts. There's a phrase used to describe what you are claiming. It's "not true". Personal attacks are low. Personal attacks based on invented facts area lower still. Since you're prepared to simply invent things to support your "view" that casts a lot more doubt over your other claims.

MakIng personal digs is something you should have learned to resist by now. It really drags down the tone of the conversation.

🤣 Imagined data on Underhill Road supports your argument 🤣. But of course it does 😉. You don't actually know Earl is wrong. You're guessing.

You chose to ignore my reply. Impossible to have a genuine discussion if you do so. If your car is generating a lot of fines, might I suggest you pay more attention to the road? Yes? We have ~4000 deaths per year in London due to pollution, a substantial fraction of which comes from road transport. Any given pollution maims and kills just the same regardless of how much or when you spent money on the machine that generates it. Which "people"? You, for sure. I don't feel it's a war on motorists. Every time I drive, I deeply wish the council would do more to get people out of cars, because when I need to drive, I find the roads very clogged. We know many of the journeys are ones that could be done with other means of transport in principle, but not in practice given London as it is now. It's well established traffic engineering that de-prioritising cars will actually make car journeys better due to the Downs-Thompson Paradox. That's precisely what I'm suggesting, but you seem to think that taking a wholistic view including all users is a war on motorists. So, it's hard to be productive in this regard. Do you not feel it is absurd that it takes an hour to drive to Croydon but (according to google maps) 90 minutes to walk? The only way of making a journey like that better is paradoxically to de-prioritise cars so that there are other transport modes which are safe, quick and convenient.

Well you've certainly found a great way of lumping everyone on a bike into a convenient group you can look down on! Mindless tribalism is definitely better way to deal with congestion than sound engineering principles.

It's rather overboard to claim that motorists are being attacked. While people feel it's so personal and driven by a desire to harm, there can be no productive discussion. Reducing the subsidy for (on average) wealthy car owners is not an attack. But as the saying goes, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

I was simplifying for the purpose of brevity. Oversimplifying perhaps! The practicality of buses increases as there are fewer cars on the road. If they're just stuck in the same traffic as cars, and you get to store cars for free, then for car owners they're kind of like cars but less convenient, which means only people who have to take them will take them. Excellent video here which centres around the Downs–Thomson paradox. What's interesting is that if cars are de-prioritised so other means of transport get faster, then for the remaining people taking car journeys, it will improve their journey times too. There's quite a lot of places where it's a bit of a slog to get there by bus, but also a bit of a slog by car right now.

I doubt that. What you seem to be angling towards is a "gotya!" the conclusion of which mysteriously leads to solutions which benefit car owners (who skew wealthier than non car owners) and no one else. You also (intentionally?) ignored the actual point that car ownership is very expensive compared to bike ownership, and therefore prioritising bike ownership is what will help in a cost of living crisis. Car ownership is expensive and is rather underrepresented by those on lower incomes. Anything which prioritises cars over other forms of transport will prioritise the on average wealthy 40% with access to cars. There are plenty of other options other than that particular cargo bike, one I picked for it's high cost in order to illustrate just how expensive car ownership is. You know that. We both know that. So why adopt the air that it's the only alternative.

I agree, and especially in a cost of living crisis, they should be doing as much as they can to provide safe, affordable forms of transport, which means more or less not cars. For example you can buy this incredibly fancy and expensive bike for about the same price as the annual cost of car ownership (excluding everything to do with purchasing, i.e. depreciation, interest, etc). Once you include the capital cost of a car and those associated costs, you could afford to buy and throw away a very expensive and capable electric cargo bike every single year and it would cost you less than owning a car. Alternative transport to cars, including buses are only practical with fewer cars on the road so that people are safe cycling, and buses aren't stuck in car traffic. And, it will also improve safety for other users since on average cyclists are substantially more law abiding than motorists with the gap widening further as cyclists are given more safe infrastructure.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole > thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many > people, Indeed it is a very serious matter which is why I am taking the time to post. All I'm doing is following the opinions of the anti-LTN people to their obvious conclusions and enthusiastically agreeing. If you don't like that then perhaps you don't actually like the reasoning behind the opinions. If that's so then you're welcome to change yours: the other camp is right over there ----> I'm sure they'd welcome you. > and I don?t think your tone is coming > across quite how you envisage it might be. I can't really speculate on what your opinion on how you think I think what I say looks. > The > current scheme causes more pollution for the > schools in DV, I suspect, That's good enough me! We definitely need to reopen the road to more cars to reduce pollution. > and in any case, as > others have pointed out, some schools ought not to > be more equal than others. Indeed, the goal is to make sure everyone breathes their fair share of pollution. We shouldn't do anything to reduce the total amount just in case the whole "fair share" thing gets temporarily unbalanced. I think we reached the ideal point in 2019 and should strive to return to that. After all, we tried the LTNs and they didn't seem to appeal to many people and there don't seem to be other credible plans.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Court lane has no schools, nurseries, health > centres, hospitals etc there never was any > justification for any closures. I pretty much agree: most of the justifications were pretty poor. On the one hand you have the SUV owners on Court Lane who quite rightfully want to drive their bought and paid for vehicles to where ever you want. All other justifications like the safety of the DV junction and the traffic by the school with the attendant pollution etc are quite unimportant by comparison. These people have expensive cars and should have the right to get value from their investments.

Oh dear things aren't looking good for us. With people here like Rockets trying to stir up animosity against certain residents with false claims, heartblock trying to paint all cyclists in a bad light and anti-LTN people intimidating people with pro-LTN viewpoints and even attempts to go all vigilante and remove the barriers, our side is not looking like we have the moral high ground. What can we do to drag the pro-LTNers down to our level? Any ideas? I mean if I supported LTNs I'd be afraid to say so in public now for fear of blowback.

Tilt Wrote: > > I've gone back numerous pages and I am none the > wiser in trying to figure out whether your replies > are sarcastic or not. If they are I'm not sure > they're having the effect you think they are. Maybe you should stop worrying about that? I'd reassure you, but you might simply think I'm being sarcastic about that, so it wouldn't really do any good. It's only reasonable to call the new thing divisive if divisions didn't exist before. And on that I agree with you, everyone loved the traffic state before the LTN and there were no divisions. So we can consider the new one divisive. Do you not agree?

Tilt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > with no consultation that are so divisive only It's amazing they would choose something like this that's divisive: the situation before was loved by everyone, and there were no divisions over that at all. I think we should go back to exactly how things were two years ago, that was perfection.