redpost

Full electric cars are between 70-90% efficient - but that's from the plug (charger) to the road. You may want to go further and include transmission losses (powerstation to charger) of around 10% and then the power station. I think a combined cycle gas fired plant is around 60% efficient. If your electricity comes from wind/solar then these can be considered 100% efficient. The driving cycle matters greatly for hybrids and EV's, since they recover (charge the battery) energy from braking. As for hybrids, somewhere between non-hybrid and EV efficiency. But depends on the type of hybrid. Some can't propel the car by motor alone, they assist by recovering energy from braking and expending it to help the combustion engine reducing fuel consumption this way (mild hybrids i think??)

Thanks exdulwicher & rarah, very interesting. I suspected the displacement onto minor roads, I don't drive, but when I get an uber I can see the trip avoiding main roads quite often even when (personally) I'd prefer the main road route as less a lot less turns and less potential harm to residents/kids on small streets etc

Submit a formal complaint to southwark, await the response. If you still feel you have been wronged ask for the complaint to be escalated to the local government ombudsman. Then, southwark will be ALL ears to keep the stats down, in my case a special team called me to see how they could resolve it.

No, I was quoting national figures as was the top paramedic. The point stands in my criticism of the daily mail.

"How about execessive car usage affecting emergency response times?" Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years You won't read that headline in the daily mail, because it's true Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The > > Guardian > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > > > > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > > > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author > is.....none other than cycling activist and > Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker > ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation: > How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-) > > As I read each of the points he tries to, > unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder > each time....the level of cultish delusion runs > strongly through each.... > > Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into > overdrive at the moment - they must sense that > they are under pressure. Peter is posting an > exclusive report today saying that there is no > evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the > report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the > director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a > big cycle lobbyist and activist..... > > Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into > overdrive The Mail on Sunday > (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the > UK's head paramedic saying that closures are > impacting response times.....both sides are upping > the > ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8 > 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu > lances-traffic-jams.html

During the great double yellow debate, I seem to remember a fair few objections to cycle hangers on the road taking away car parking spaces, or perhaps I'm getting my rants mixed up?

Yes, i'm sure a warden could easily remember the 250,000 flagged* car registrations and do it so much quicker than a computer. * = SORN, no insurance, no tax, wanted on PNC etc lameduck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You've not told us whether you've checked > whether > > the alleged untaxed car is atill there; or, if > it > > is, whether it is definitely untaxed, as > checkable > > here: https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax > > I didnt think to do that,car has gone looked a > nice car not old. > Seemed too much technology plus driver cameras > fired to see every car reg > in all directions, to do a job that maybe a warden > could do. > i was wondering if they we looking for vehicles, > that were miles from home. > with this dont travel covid advice

"despite what the council and pro-closure lobby would like people to believe it is now a majority of people who object to what the council is doing" source please? and don't say Donald Trump

These wands are exactly where they are needed, by allowing cyclists to get safely to the advance start zone. I cycle this way very regularly and approx 60% of the time I couldn't get to the advance start zone as the cycle lane was blocked by cars. From what I can see, approx 70/80% of the road width here is still allowed for cars.

No i don't rockets - I thought you were in favour of segregated cycles lanes down EDG? but fromt this I guess you're only in favour when it doesn't reduce car road space, which means nothing

perhaps you should drive through the barriers, then you can moan about the sinkhole that collapsed and swallowed your car? ED Light Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why on earth are there traffic lights managing > these roadworks? > > Outside JAGS school on East Dulwich Grove. > > 1) adding chaos to an already chaotic area given > recent traffic changes. > It added 20mins of travel time the other > night. > > 2) the works are encroaching the carriageway by a > MAXIMUM half a meter. All it needs is a couple of > cones. > > Who decides this stuff?? - and signs off the > budget?

it was a cycle lane as it was green and had a solid painted boundary Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was never a cycle lane, it was an entry to an > advanced cycle stop line box.

There was a cycle lane before the barriers were put in, however being frequently blocked by drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a barrier in. n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > march46 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Interesting how you blame the council, when > there > > was always traffic there > > Of course, and because their attempts to improve > things have been misconceived. While the N Dulwich > traffic lights' new right filter may have > mitigated the tailback the council caused by the > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the filter > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see any > in the photos?) which means that vehicles heading > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in the > tailback.

A guy signed it down the pub last night multiple times as "jeremy clarkson" and "lewis hamilton", it does not even validate the email address or stop multiple signings from the same IP/name/device. Therefore trumpeting figures is a waste of time.

please stop trotting out the argument about pollution monitoring, the costs are very high: install pollution monitoring station: ?50K - ?80K annual running costs: ?19 - ?44K in this location, costs will definitely be even higher plus the fact they are BIG, not sure where they could be sited pollution can easily be extrapolated from traffic levels, traffic surveys, weather etc source: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat06/0608141644-386_Purchasing_Guide_for_AQ_Monitoring_Equipment_Version2.pdf Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > usual naive reasoning yet again here: > > > > 1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be > > during the lockdown, so data would be utterly > > useless anyway > > 2) anyway, how do you know there is no before > > monitoring? I thought only the court lane > > illuminati had access to this data? > > 3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from > > previous monitoring in any case with a known > > variance (e.g. figures from 2y ago can be > adjusted > > upwards to account for general traffic increase > > with a known error of +-10% say) > > 4) data is available from smartphones (e.g. > google > > maps shows congestion levels) > > > > the traffic dept have software to do all of > this, > > it's scientific and it works, but hey what do > they > > know? > > > > > > > > Spartacus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > "the monitoring has been half-hearted at > > best," > > > > > > > > How do you get to that conclusion? > > > > > > I suspect that because they have no base data > > > taken from before the measures were > implemented > > so > > > it appears that the council are really only > > > playing lip service to monitoring and showing > > the > > > effects (good or bad) > > > It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said > > the > > > majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy > > with > > > LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for > > hair > > > products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly > not > > a > > > conclusive survey. > > > > > > So the issue is a scheme rushed in too > quickly, > > > with no base data resulting in massive > > resentment > > > by those directly effected. > > > > > > If the council do a proper unbiased survey > and > > use > > > pre and post implementation monitoring of > > schemes > > > then maybe, just maybe people might start to > > trust > > > them again. > > Let me correct you on a couple of things. > > Firstly, these closures were planned long before > Covid and there was a "consultation" process in > progress when the council used Covid as the trojan > horse to get them in (remember they first pushed > this on the basis of the need for social > distancing -see Cllr McAsh posts on said subject). > > > We know there was no "before" monitoring because > the council admitted that they were only > monitoring the closed roads (due to lack of > budget) then found the budget to do it when people > said...how are you going to monitor how successful > it's been if you can't see if all that has > happened is the traffic has been displaced. This > monitoring went in a month or so after the > closures happened and as lockdown began to lift. > So they have no base - they can, however, tell you > how quiet the closed roads are. > > "Before" can be easily extrapolated ONLY if they > had been monitoring the roads where displacement > has taken place but there is no sign they had > been. In fact, people have asked repeatedly to see > the modelling the council will have had to have > done on displacement but nothing has been > forthcoming. People are, quite rightly, asking why > are they not sharing that info. Why? Because in > all likelihood their modelling will have shown the > impact on the displacement roads. But of course > this is part of the plan (but no-one will ever > admit this) - by closing some roads you make the > displacement roads so unbearable that you hope > people find another means of transport. But only > 10% of people do. So I can guarantee you someone > in the roads department said: "Hang on, this is > going to cause chaos elsewhere - the displacement > roads can handle the increase in traffic. > > Let's also remember the council uses monitoring to > help them justify the closures so, in the DV area > for example, they only have figures in the > consultation documents for monitoring on the roads > they wanted to close. > > If data is so readily available and accurate from > smartphones (I am not convinced you can just go to > Google and say please give me all of your users' > data - you certainly can't do it with Apple) then > why do the council rely so heavily on monitoring > strips across the road? That in itself suggests > that is still their preferred option for data > collection. > > Why are they refusing to monitor pollution? > > Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the > council lied about the increase in traffic through > the DV junction to justify their original closure > plan before Covid. The 47% increase in traffic > flow through the junction was a stat that was, at > best, utterly misleading, at worst the worst case > of deliberately feeding the constituents > completely erroneous data to try to build support > for their plans. > > Not much of the above appears as na?ve reasoning > to me....the only naivety has been on the part of > the council who hoped people wouldn't start > scratching beneath the surface or asking the > difficult questions they don't want to answer.

usual naive reasoning yet again here: 1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be during the lockdown, so data would be utterly useless anyway 2) anyway, how do you know there is no before monitoring? I thought only the court lane illuminati had access to this data? 3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from previous monitoring in any case with a known variance (e.g. figures from 2y ago can be adjusted upwards to account for general traffic increase with a known error of +-10% say) 4) data is available from smartphones (e.g. google maps shows congestion levels) the traffic dept have software to do all of this, it's scientific and it works, but hey what do they know? Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "the monitoring has been half-hearted at best," > > > > How do you get to that conclusion? > > I suspect that because they have no base data > taken from before the measures were implemented so > it appears that the council are really only > playing lip service to monitoring and showing the > effects (good or bad) > It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said the > majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy with > LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for hair > products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly not a > conclusive survey. > > So the issue is a scheme rushed in too quickly, > with no base data resulting in massive resentment > by those directly effected. > > If the council do a proper unbiased survey and use > pre and post implementation monitoring of schemes > then maybe, just maybe people might start to trust > them again.

Had one guy yesterday, he talks in a kind of "swiss toni from the fast show" lilt? Skinny, short/medium height, dresses like a geezer? (pink shorts/white shirt) He's very insistent on doing your windows for a tenner. I didn't want to break it to him we have tilt and turn windows which can be cleaned from the inside easily. He's been down north dulwich a few times and you feel very uneasy around him

And what I am saying is that the OP was delayed once for perhaps (lets say 2 minutes, which perhaps was made up for later) for 2 young lads riding abreast without helmets, failed entirely to rationalise it and instead trots this out as an argument that cyclists take pleasure in delaying motorists and behave as though they have priority on the roads.

exactamundo rangerover sport road area occupied = 9.6m2 mini clubman = 7.5m2 bicycle < 1m2

Thanks for the advice. My bike isn't very expensive, so i'll concentrate on external security that looks meaty. Been thinking and I may clad it with decking on the outside, won't be so obvious that there's a bike in it and I have some left over 22mm IPE decking which is rock hard.

I've yet to see one locked up probably because they've already been stolen. I think they are a very good transport solution if riders are educated. I go to Tel Aviv every year, and last year the city was filled with hire scooters from Lime, Bird and some other smaller companies. The scooters weren't docked, you just leave them on the pavement in a non-obstructing place. Every night you would see guys with vans picking them up for charging ... they get paid to charge them up and re-deploy them before the morning. When they make it to London, I think they will prove to be extremely popular.

Kens has my vote and he put curry sauce on the menu about a year ago. When I first came to london 30y ago, curry sauce in a chippy was extremely rare. Sainsburys do jars of 'chinese style curry sauce' which is very good if you don't fancy paying ?1.50 a portion.

yes, car drivers very often inconvenience me, the difference is that i'm not sat in a metal box with seatbelts, crush zones and air bags. As a cyclist this is what i put up with: * pull out in front forcing me to brake sharply (very common) * opening door without checking for traffic (not common these days due to education, but a nightmare 20y ago) * close overtaking at speed on london streets, only for me to overtake them again 200m later at lights/congestion (common) * driving while on the phone (very common) * driving while operating a phone (rare-ish) * speeding (ubiquitous) Just like the daily mail comments section playbook (no helmets, always jumping red lights, road tax, insurance, riding two abreast etc etc) your comment unintentionally dehumanises cyclists, lumping them all together in one homogenous gang of rule breakers, because if they break the rules then why shouldn't I? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > perhaps you should do some highway profiency > and > > read the highway code, there is nothing wrong > with > > riding two abreast > > > > daily-mail comments like yours (riding two > > abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only > > serve to give car drivers a bad rap and > illustrate > > your ignorance of the law > > > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Siduhe Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily > dangerous > > to > > > other road users but many are dangerous to > > > themselves. I used to cycle to work from > > Dulwich > > > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled > by > > > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car > driver > > I > > > respect everyone else's right to use the > roads > > and > > > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. > But > > > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the > > only > > > road users and somehow have more priority > than > > > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing > no > > > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were > > > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of > > > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking > great > > > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling > > pace. > > > I understand there is a mindset of we want to > > use > > > the road but really...it's why cyclists get > such > > a > > > bad rap. > > > > > > The other danger in London are the Boris > bikes > > - > > > it seems by default that people who use these > > have > > > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any > > idea > > > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road > > > sense. > > > > > > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some > > sort > > > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) > as > > > they are a law unto themselves sometimes. > > Ha ha, there we go - you illustrate my point > beautifully...don't you think riding two abreast > on the A205 might be somewhat, I dunno, > inconsiderate to other roads users? Just because > you can doesn't mean you should. > > And a correction - I didn't say cyclists should > pay road tax I said they should be encouraged to > take cycling proficiency - you went all Daily Mail > on me and put words into my mouth! ;-)

perhaps you should do some highway profiency and read the highway code, there is nothing wrong with riding two abreast daily-mail comments like yours (riding two abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only serve to give car drivers a bad rap and illustrate your ignorance of the law Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Siduhe Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous to > other road users but many are dangerous to > themselves. I used to cycle to work from Dulwich > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver I > respect everyone else's right to use the roads and > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the only > road users and somehow have more priority than > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling pace. > I understand there is a mindset of we want to use > the road but really...it's why cyclists get such a > bad rap. > > The other danger in London are the Boris bikes - > it seems by default that people who use these have > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any idea > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road > sense. > > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some sort > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as > they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

And looking on street view, ferndale road is quite narrow with cars parked each side. Fire engines are going to get stuck there with planters or no planters - although no one complains when it's cars impeeding the emergency servcies. In this case it looks like there should have been double yellows painted opposite the planter to stop the white car parking on the corner. Easily fixed. Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not going to say anything specific about > anyone because I don't know their circumstances. > However, 90% of stay at home parents whose journey > involves a 10 min school run through the centre of > Brixton could be choosing a different form of > transport without undue hardship. And it's exactly > those journeys that have to go.