exdulwicher

Given that there was a consultation on the route changes, that would make the "random decision" thing impossible by definition. Buses in London (in fact almost everywhere) are subsidised so it doesn't really make much difference if you're subsidising it to go this way or that way. I posted the reasons for the changes above but here it is again: Route changes can come about for any number of reasons. Add capacity, begin to serve a new housing development or business / employment area, stop serving a no-longer-used area (maybe somewhere undergoing redevelopment for example), maintain / increase / reduce service frequency... TfL has reams of data on bus usage, timings, patronage, positioning, network efficiency and so on.

I'd suggest you have two options. 1. Pop down there on Day 1, tell them that it can't possibly take them 3 months, stop lounging around, crack on and be done in a week you useless bunch of layabouts. It's just a bit of resurfacing and some painting after all. 2. Email the project manager - the contact details are all in the letter - and demand an explanation of exactly how it can possibly take them this length of time since it is (apparently) just a week's job. You may wish to outline your expertise in this area and examples of where similar schemes have been done in a week. Do let us know the outcome!

You could do it much quicker if a full and complete road closure was put in and they could work nightshifts. But no-one would ever go for that. Combination of keeping the whole lot at least partially open (so extensive traffic management set-up), phased works so that all the utilities can be worked on in the right sequence (cos it'll be like spaghetti underneath that road with water mains, gas, electricity, phone and internet and probably a few unexpected things too), there'll be a bit of leeway for weather-related disruption, there'll be costs for 24/7 on-site security (like stopping anyone running off with equipment, vandalising it etc). Depends on the sensor and camera network around there, it can be done. It is broken, it's been on the cards since mid-2000's for improvement works there but there are also questions of ownership (of the roads and the surrounding land, especially the Grove Tavern) and there have long been campaigns for safer crossing facilities there.

Back in about 2018, TfL had a consultation on a number of bus route changes, mostly to get rid of some longer routes (which are much more subject to delays than shorter ones) and also to prevent a mass of buses all terminating in and around Strand / Trafalgar Square / Oxford Circus. So the 40 got withdrawn between Aldgate and Elephant & Castle and was rerouted to Clerkenwell Green via Blackfriars Bridge and Ludgate Circus to replace route 45. At the same time, TfL introduced the Hopper Fare which meant that if you subsequently had to change buses as a result of the route alterations, you still only got charged the one flat rate, equivalent to taking just the one bus. If there are ever any issues at London Bridge, try getting the Northern Line to Elephant & Castle - that gives you options to get the 176 or 40 from there or any bus towards Camberwell then pick up the 185. Or you can do Thameslink to Herne Hill then 37 towards Dulwich. Oval is a bit more flaky / fewer options. You kind of feel that you've gone further south on the Tube so it should be quicker / easier but it rarely is. On the other hand I get why people would not want to be wandering around Elephant in the dark, it's not one of the nicer Tube stations...

Someone (be it the legitimate owner, or a car thief) has parked a Merc on a wall (having crossed a pavement and demolished half the wall to put it there) and the concern is over one spelling mistake in the original tweet. Wow. I'm sure of course that the 20mph speed limit was being rigorously adhered to (what with the car having number plates and all that) good job the airspeed limit is much higher. 😉 Suppose we should be lucky it wasn't a Lime bike, imagine the absolute chaos and carnage that could have caused! I'm sure that could have been the subject of at least another 2 threads.

If the cycle lobby were even a tenth as powerful as you suggest, there'd be a comprehensive network of cycle facilities across the UK that would put the Netherlands to shame. As it is, it took twelve YEARS of back and forth consultation, argument and redesign, a global pandemic and several rounds of council elections to get 100m of Dulwich Village filtered. Hardly the output of some All-Powerful Cyclist Cabal... That's still not collective responsibility though. Every organisation of that nature does similar including One Dulwich (although they do it with considerably less oversight and publicity of exactly who is funding them or indeed who is even behind them). I can walk through Dulwich Park without being a member / belonging to Friends of Dulwich Park: https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/ I can ride my bike through Dulwich Village without being a member / belonging to LCC, Southwark Cyclists, Sustrans etc. You can join any organisation you want in order to express your support, that does not mean that you are responsible for any other member within it or that - apart from that one particular aspect - that you share any other common trait. In fact I could be completely unaware of the existence of LCC, doesn't stop me riding my bike.

Funny how no-one ever uses this argument on driving standards... There it is again, this idea that cyclists are somehow a coherent community and share collective responsibility. Suggesting that one person’s behaviour reflects on all other people with whom they share some attribute is just wrong. People who cycle are connected only by the fact that they sometimes use the same mode of transport. See how ridiculous it sounds if I say "the driving community really needs to get its act together and address mobile phone use and speeding" ? There is no "driving community" - there's a collection of many many individual people, none of whom are responsible for the behaviour of any other, using a similar mode of transport. Same with walking, or using a wheelchair... Likewise, it would be ridiculous to claim that everyone using public transport is a fare-dodger, simply because some people use public transport without paying. It is also a fallacy to believe that prejudiced views would disappear if the subjects of prejudice were to behave in a certain ‘approved’ way. In other respects I agree with you. I would love to see more roads policing. You're not going to find me complaining if a cyclist gets pulled over and fined for jumping a red light, same as I'd be very happy for people parking on the pavement / double yellows to be ticketed. Bring it on.

It's like trying to argue whether the murderer used a 6" knife or an 8" knife or a footlong knife. Largely irrelevant to the outcome. Illegally modified bicycle, illegal electric moped. All illegal, all can be confiscated. We return to the fact that, other than a few occasional crackdowns, they are largely not dealt with which is nothing to do with the fine detail of the bike in question and everything to do with the lack of enforcement. The existing laws spell out very clearly what is a legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) and what is an illegally modified bicycle or an electric moped / motorcycle being used without registration, insurance etc on public roads.

Ah bless, I love your selective quoting. Illegal bikes / illegal mopeds / illegal motorbikes. Irrelevant, they're illegal.

They're bicycles - illegally modified via installation of a motor, battery and throttle.Therefore they already fall foul of existing laws and can be seized and destroyed. For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvxl037m9o https://news.sky.com/video/police-seize-illegal-e-bikes-and-e-scooters-on-streets-of-london-13271669 https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/features/vast-majority-of-seized-e-bikes-are-being-used-by-delivery-riders-but-what The latter link is quite interesting. Society has essentially created this issue - app-based food delivery firms have taken over the high street takeaway industry. If your takeaway business is not on Deliveroo / Just Eat etc, it's going nowhere (same as hotels being "forced" to be on booking.com). The apps pay the rider by delivery while also promising the consumer that their food will be with them in <30 minutes. From the moment you press the "order" button on the app, the takeaway has 15-20 minutes to receive that order, prepare it, pack it, give it to the rider and the rider then has 10-15 minutes to deliver it. It is basically essential that the rider breaks any and all road laws, rides like a dickhead and has some form of transport that permits this. Mopeds are expensive, you need to do CBT etc plus they have number plates. Modified bikes = WIN! They get shared around too, legitimate riders sub-let their accounts to people who really don't have the right to work or can't get employment (often migrants). The police know all this and it's not exactly difficult to find these people, they're outside every bloody takeaway on LL! The problem is that doing anything about it results in people not getting their food order (and therefore getting irate) and a whole world of complexity involving HMRC, DWP, and whatever layers of Government need to deal with immigrants who don't technically have the right to work. You arrest a dozen delivery riders and confiscate the bikes, there's then a week of paperwork to deal with the people you've detained, half of whom won't even be on record and in the meantime the gap has been filled by another dozen riders on borrowed bikes. On the other hand, Mrs Miggins on EDG got her order of dumplings and fried rice in 5 minutes so she's happy, even if she'll moan about "bloody delivery cyclists" the next day. The problem is allowed to exist in plain sight because these people are scraping a living on a few pence per drop, providing a service and - other than being a bit of a nuisance - are otherwise not out there begging / stealing / turning to crime. If you want to solve it, the answer is not speed limits or registration plates or fining the riders, it's dealing with the app companies that have created this issue in the first place (and to a lesser extent, dealing with the lazy public who can't even be arsed walking to the takeaway 5 minutes down the road).

They're criminals - the fact they're using bikes is largely irrelevant. I assume that if someone ran up to you, pushed you over and stole your phone then ran away, you wouldn't be seeking licencing and registration for shoes cos that was the criminal's getaway method...? And licencing hasn't exactly been a deterrent for criminals using cars - plenty of ways to hide a car's identity. Hell, it got to the point of people driving through Dulwich Square with strategically placed "leaves" on their number plates. There's been a number of photos shared online of drivers half covering their number plate to avoid a fine from an ANPR camera at a bus gate. Strangely, that didn't invoke 12 pages of ire about the lawlessness and criminality of drivers.... Weird.

No-one is saying injuries / deaths are not bad. They are, of course they are. The issue is where you look to minimise injuries and deaths. On average, 5 people A DAY are killed on the UK roads: https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety If that sort of death toll was happening on the railways or in aviation or even at work, entire industries would be shut down. You know the cyclist case (and the names involved) because it is so rare that it inevitably makes headline news, it's a sort of "man bites dog" moment for the press. Would you get on the London Underground if you knew that 5 passengers a day would be killed?! One, maybe two, deaths a year caused by cyclists. Five PER DAY caused by drivers. So you can understand how Governments / police / road safety organisations are not really looking at cyclists when they try to fix this issue...

You mean the local community that specifically voted for the two Labour councillors behind the LTN and rejected the two Tory candidates standing on a "we will rip out all the LTNs" manifesto? The "groups" across London are the same shouty minority - it's amazing how the same individuals crop up in pics and online, a tiny group of obsessives who've been banging the same drum for 5 years, in spite of having lost numerous legal challenges and at every local election. Credit to them though for managing to place a near constant string of stories in the Times and Telegraph. Suppose it gives them something to do when they're not frantically trying to rig the results of every consultation going... https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s161579/ODDR Proposed West Dulwich CPZ - Results of Statutory Consultation.pdf See page 11 of this. If you can't be bothered to click and scroll through, the basics are here (my highlighting): CONSULTATION AND CO-PRODUCTION West Dulwich CPZ - results of Statutory Consultation 5.1 By the closing date of Friday 20 September 2024, a total of 10,972 representations had been received via the online engagement portal in response to the CPZ consultation. 5.2 Given that a statutory consultation such as this is open to anyone interested in those advertised proposals, Lambeth’s online engagement portal accepts multiple representations from individuals and organisations and also different individuals living within the same property address. 5.3 On closer inspection officers discovered that, during the week prior to the close of the statutory consultation, two separate individuals had submitted multiple identical responses connected to addresses from a particular street within the proposed CPZ boundary. A detailed review suggested that these multiple responses may have constituted a deliberate act to skew the results of the statutory consultation, and as a consequence, this data has been ‘cleaned’ to remove the ‘duplicate’ responses, leaving just one unique representation from each of these two respondents. The same thing was found in most of the LTN consultations, Lambeth got rid of about a third of the responses which had all originated over the course of 2 solid days from the same 2 or 3 IP addresses. Fascinating how people who bang on endlessly about democracy are so keen to try and subvert it....

I would hope that wherever there is an issue with lawbreaking, be that shoplifting, robbery, vandalism, the police would raise their game and have a crackdown. Obviously there comes an issue of resourcing, cost-effectiveness etc and it's notable that whenever the police start pulling over motorists for the same offences like red light jumping, speeding etc, there's a whole raft of comments like "why don't you go and catch some real criminals" and "oh so you go after the easy targets like a motorist inadvertently doing 5mph over the speed limit but can't be bothered to turn up to a burglary"... Which again is an interesting insight into how some road crime gets a free pass...

So they can be publicly vilified in advance of being hung, drawn and quartered. Dulwich Square is going to have a gibbet and gallows installed next month. Southwark Council will be selling tickets to raise revenue. The miscreants' bikes will be auctioned off, also to raise council funds. The conspiracy continues.