exdulwicher

Can you conspiracy theorists please make up your mind what spurious shite you'll post about these counters cos I've seen the "it won't register vehicles below..." speeds variously quoted as 10kph, 10mph and 20kph. None of which are right by the way but it'd be nice if you could agree some consistency. Thanks. Also, if you could understand that there are in fact multiple ways you can measure traffic, it's not just counted off ONE pneumatic tube. Thanks again.

Oh are we back on the "I pay road tax" argument? Roads are paid for by council tax (for local roads); strategic road network / motorways etc are government funded via National Highways. There are very few hypothecated taxes - what you pay as "road tax" (correctly called Vehicle Excise Duty) or Fuel Duty doesn't go to the roads - it just goes directly into government coffers to be spent on whatever our wise government deems necessary. There's a separate argument there because fuel duty revenues are dropping substantially due to more EVs so there's going to have to be a rethink to plug the large gap in finances. At the moment that's coming from things like parking charges, congestion / clean air charges but again, with EV (and most modern ICE cars) exempt from ULEZ/CAZ, there's going to have to be another think on that front as well. What tax should pedestrians pay for using the pavement - that's public realm? Maybe kids should pay some tax - after all we send them to those taxpayer-funded schools and give them things like playgrounds? Paying more tax doesn't mean you get more rights to anything.

I agree, I'd like all leadership contenders to have "can look solemn and carry a big sword" on their CV. Vital skill in this modern age. Anyway Liz Truss didn't need a sword, she managed to slice the economy to ribbons using just the thoroughly blunt instrument of her mind. And I was definitely reminded of the Monty Python scene...

Report it anyway - even just a rough idea of where it's coming from will be sufficient for the council and yours is unlikely to be the only complaint. If they've got multiple complaints all with rough info of "it's a few houses along" or "it's out the back" they can traingulate it fairly accurately. Put it this way, there's nothing to lose by reporting it. Keep a diary of when it happens - date, time and duration - cos it'll all be important to build a case. A one-off is easy to dismiss but regular breaches will get looked into.

This is one of the challenges that you get with parking. Suppose a station has a small car park and, when it fills up, people start parking on the surrounding streets to the detriment of residents, deliveries etc. Or alternatively, a paid-for parking system is introduced (like in Dulwich Park). To avoid that, people again search out free parking on surrounding streets - there are notable other issues with this such as "cruising" (where people are driving round and round for ages trying to find a space which further adds to congestion etc). To solve this, a CPZ (or some other restriction like double yellows) is introduced and to avoid that, people start parking further out again. Like LTN's, it's a bit of a catch-22 situation - they don't work well in isolation. If you have a small CPZ (eg, around a station), people simply park for free outside it and walk in. So you end up needing more CPZ. That in itself is not a bad thing - parking controls are one of the most effective means of private vehicle constraint. The issue with resident permits is that it costs a lot to administer (and the system needs to be self-financing) and it is not entirely equitable - OK not much in private car usage is equitable but those with big driveways effectively have their own zero-cost parking while those with on-street parking have to pay. As an aside, you get the same with ULEZ - those who can afford to buy/lease an EV or other compliant vehicle do so and then, because they've paid a lot of money for it they want to, or feel that, they should use it as much as possible and the at-source payment is near zero - no ULEZ, no parking fees at home etc There are further considerations - a vast amount of public space is given over to (effectively free, or very highly subsidised) storage of private property which is again extremely unfair. There's a good report here on the issue: https://centreforlondon.org/publication/parking-kerbside-management/ It's not an easy thing to solve though. Parking is, quite accurately, regarded as a "third rail" in political circles. Touch it and you die!

Technically, terrapins are a type of turtle... They've been around for years. Occasionally, they've been pulled out of Dulwich Park ponds as well. No idea if they're actually breeding or if it's always just a couple of pets that have been dumped.

that's a bit nosy (I’d like to know if he paid cash for it) so what if he did ? He won't have paid a penny for it. There'll be some billionaire Brexit backer / Tory donor / media mogul who has bought it as a "gift" for him. Well it's useful to know where the paparazzi are going to be camped out!

Tracksuits?! Do you mean "active leisurewear"...? Not the organic cotton ones that M&S have, no... 😉

Social media has a lot to answer for in these cases. The problem with the "positive engagement" aspect is that the people who listen to the message already know it (to a greater or lesser extent). The people who don't care will continue not to care. And now, social media has given them a way of answering back. Look at any tweet from the local police saying (for example) "it's cold and wet out there, watch for icy patches, slow down..." There's a torrent of abuse in the replies telling them to go and catch some real criminals, get the council to fix the roads, stop being the nanny state. Same in any of those countless "share the road", "respect other road users", "share with care", "think bike"... Every time there's any sort of road safety campaign now, it rapidly degenerates into a free for all of replies that cyclists should pay road tax, horses should be in the fields and not ridden on the roads, the Government are ripping off drivers and so on. About the only campaign that did have any effect was "don't drink and drive" and that took 20+ years to really become accepted - part of that was a lad's drinking culture, I can handle my drink, I've always had a couple of pints and been fine attitude which has taken a generation to really change significantly. No other campaign has ever lasted that long - there's a few weeks of a "be safe, be seen" or something and it might come around again the following autumn as the nights draw in but that's it. Even the "don't use a mobile while driving" stuff has been very quiet - the penalty for it went up but everyone knows there's very little chance of being caught so its rife. Enforcement isn't a vote-winner in most cases - drivers complain that they're being treated as a cash-cow (seemingly ignoring the glaring inconsistency that if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be fined), and doing high profile "crackdowns" are very resource heavy which brings up the other common compliant of "go and catch some real criminals". Given a choice between the scarce police resources being deployed en masse on a junction to catch e-scooter riders or cyclists jumping the lights and the resources being deployed against knife crime or drug dealing,, the latter tend to be higher priority and more politically welcomed... Ultimately, you're right, it needs enforcement. You could set the penalty for phone use at £1000 but people knew the chances of being caught were near zero, they'd carry on using phones. On the other hand if the penalty was £100 but you were near certain to be caught, it'd stop after a few months of £100 fines every time.

Well you don't want bikes left all over the place, that's very clear from this whole thread. So the answer is some form of parking bay. It's more an improvement to the existing trial - sort of why you have the trial in the first place. "Yes, it's good, people are using the scooters/bikes but we're getting complaints about inconsiderate parking, let's fix that..." And then you fix it. To be fair, the same rules apply for Zipcar, they have designated parking bays.

It's more complicated than that. The trial is being run by TfL in conjunction with three operators (Lime, Dott and TIER) and the councils, some of which stopped their trials at the originally agreed point, some of which extended their trials as per the Government's directive. The "extension" of the trials was to hide the fact that the proposed Transport Bill through Parliament to legalise them has been delayed. So the data is with the operators and TfL and is intended to be London-wide; although the councils are all providing feedback it's not up to them to be publishing usage data.

You were bigging up your own scientific credentials and abilities the other day, are you now saying that you can't be trusted to run a statistical analysis?! Research experts know that bias can find its way into any research program – it’s naive to think that any research could be 100 percent free from it. What you're basically doing is accusing the research team of confirmation bias - the sort of belief in this case (correct me if I'm wrong) that if it's anti-car / pro-bicycle, it MUST be good, it simply cannot be any other way and therefore we must publish that. I'd position that the other way around. If they are such vocal active travel campaigners, surely they want the best scheme possible, one that delivers genuine benefits? If it doesn't work because it's caused gridlock on surrounding roads or pollution has gone up or traffic has increased or cycling has decreased, then it's a shit scheme and needs to be called out on that. Dear Council, thanks for the data, it shows the scheme has failed on X, Y and Z, we recommend a complete rethink. But the data, not just from Southwark but other councils as well is, broadly, pretty positive. This is not exactly a surprise, it's been known for years that this stuff works it's just there's been very limited political will to do anything about it. A few minor bits that require further research, better data, longer study or a few tweaks (like the alteration of timings that Southwark did a while ago) because it's not just a single point in time, it's an evolution - people gradually change behaviour, most car owners can't simply get rid of their car the second a plant pot goes in, demographics alter subtly over long periods of time... There are definitely issues over some of the data - that got called out in the original report so they're not trying to hide anything. It details the statistical analysis that was done on it all, removing each set in turn and conducting regression analysis to determine outliers. Sort of related that's why you can't just see the raw data NOW immediately because it's completely meaningless without the broader context. The reports they've done detail the steps taken to avoid bias; there's a research plan, a statement of the hypothesis and an evaluation of that, the topics and data categories are clearly outlined, the results are shown and the paper is open to peer-review. The authors (and their credentials) clearly listed. Never seen any of that from any OneDulwich publication yet strangely you never accuse them of bias... Interesting... But anyway, if you have concerns over the bias of UoW and the research team, I suggest you take it up with the university. You're making some fairly serious claims amounting to professional misconduct so surely, as a concerned citizen, you want that addressed? Best let TfL know as well so they can appoint a truly independent expert. Someone who has never been involved with any LTN in any capacity anywhere yet knows all about them. You need to roll up one trouser leg, put on a cycle clip and give the sacred hand signal only used towards motorists 🖕 Yes but where do I collect my cheque from this well-funded team of militant cyclists?! Is that why they're all in such a rush, hurtling through red lights to deliver the paychecks to the next paid shill researcher or Councillor? Wow, I'm missing out! Back in a bit, just off to apply to UoW...

You're aware that the research/evaluation was already being conducted, yes? It's got nothing to do with the petition. The appointment was made to the most expert organisation in the field of active travel. TfL / DfT opened up a tender for research into LTNs. UoW (alongside other universities and probably a couple of private sector organisations) will have submitted bids based on their expertise. A winner was chosen. That happened before the petition. Besides which it's not "just" Rachel Aldred, there's a team of very highly regarded researchers at UoW with multiple peer-reviewed papers to their names, also backed up now by Active Travel England. I suppose they're biased too cos Chris Boardman is National Active Travel Commissioner, that'll be the next claim won't it? Yes, she was an elected Trustee of London Cycling Campaign between 2012 and 2018. That's an oversight and expert advice role, not a campaigning one. From the LCC website: LCC’s ten-strong Board of Trustees review our work and check the charity is in good shape. They ensure the CEO and staff team are working in the most effective way towards our campaigning and strategic goals. Trustees have ultimate responsibility for making sure LCC meets our legal obligations – ensuring our finances are well-managed, our governance structures are functioning well and overseeing the charity’s internal democracy. And she's not been a Trustee for 5 years. Most academic experts sit on various boards, committees, charities, trusts etc as part of their role. They're expert enough to spot crap schemes, to understand the data and advise non-experts. I can see why the conspiracy theorists have jumped onto this one - it kind of fits neatly in the middle of climate denial and Covid/vaccines as a "control method" for the population. All of this is conspiracy playbook 101. Don't like the research? Conduct ad-hominem attacks on the individuals concerned, claim they're biased. You've done this several times with Rachel Aldred, Peter Walker and Cllr Rose. And now with Will Norman. And it works both ways with anyone who's in favour of general car reduction measures: Pro-LTN + owns a car = y0ur a Ma$$ivE hyp0criTE! Sell Your cAr NOW! Pro-LTN + does not own a car = a tofu-bothering eco hippy who can't possibly understand what life is like for those who NEED cars. Claim that any positive data is faked, biased, flawed, collected over the wrong period of time, collected in the wrong place, collected for too long or not long enough, manipulated, out of date... Any negative data however, even if it's a subset of some otherwise positive data, is an immediate rock-solid reason to scrap everything (in climate denial and transport planning terms it's called Policy Perfectionism - the idea that you should wait until there is a scheme that receives 100% universal approval from everyone and works perfectly. Since no such scheme can ever exist, it's basically kicking the can down the road). The fact is, it's the only place left for you to go to. The idea that somewhere there's an elite team of All Powerful Cyclists who have infiltrated Southwark (who are both too incompetent to run a bath while also conducting a vast data manipulation scam on the side). Cherry pick some data, engage in some whataboutism (what about China / wood burning stoves / aviation...), state that we don't need to do anything now because at some indeterminate point in the future, an as yet undetermined "technology" will fix everything. We can keep driving because "soon" we'll all have electric cars and self-driving cars so we don't need to do anything now. It's all classic conspiracy theory stuff. Deny the data, rubbish the academics. There are climate denial, flat earth and anti-vax videos all over the internet doing exactly that. By all means though if you can find some experts to conduct research into LTNs and produce a document like the recent LTN report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Nsm_GFdH6CpIpPpOZ7hbhLZScgqCAP7ZGI0xi4qDqA/edit which was also followed up with some FAQs: https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/your-ltn-questions then go for it. Note of course that the document above references all the data, including what could and couldn't be used and why - one of the main points coming from it was the need for better data collection all round (although Southwark's was included) so naturally we'd expect to see similar in your report. You'd best reference the hundreds of other reports from around the world on similar schemes which all report similar outcomes, maybe they're ALL lying? The cyclists have got to them too! I get that there are legitimate concerns - there always are with pretty much any transport scheme, building project etc. But don't be surprised to find that 500 people submitting a copy/paste diatribe against the supposed injustices of a scheme is not 500 arguments as to why it shouldn't happen, it's one argument put forward 500 times.

There was an LBC report on police station closures a couple of months ago. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-stations-closing-one-per-week-lbc-reveals/ Thing with bike theft though is it invariably takes a few seconds. Battery angle grinder and hydraulic bolt cutters, both of which fit into a rucksack, will get through pretty much anything. You can get bike hangers with reinforced steel rods welded all through the sides - not sure if that's an off-the-peg thing or something retrofitted but if councils are serious about providing for bikes, secure parking needs to be high up the list - not just the cheapest shed possible. Cargo bikes are ripe for that sort of theft too - if you don't have a garage, you need some sort of hanger or shed for them cos most are far too big to store in a house. Well done to the person filming it.

Take them to a pharmacy for proper disposal. Don't put them in a bin, flush them down the drain or give them away - a pharmacy will take them free of charge, no questions asked.

She and Jason Statham have a house up College Road somewhere. Seen them both very occasionally. Have to say a lot of the names on here I have no idea who they are and would never recognise them anyway! Sadly far more likely to find Boris shopping for houses (or mistresses or loan guarantors...)

Use an old bread bin. Metal or ceramic ones will be impregnable! We (very occasionally) put out half a tin of dog food for foxes in the cold weather but it's up on a small bird bath type thing so that rats can't get to it. Never bothered leaving a camera on it to film them although it's invariably gone by morning. See foxes up and down the road quite regularly. This weekend is the RSPB Garden Birdwatch if anyone is interested... https://www.rspb.org.uk/get-involved/activities/birdwatch/

That takes years to filter through, not months. Most cars are on some sort of lease / finance deal and the introduction of an LTN is not going to make many folk go "right, that's it, I'll give the car up immediately!" - often because they can't (company car, on a lease deal etc). Research from the Waltham Forest LTNs / Mini-Hollands showed a 6% fall in vehicle ownership within LTNs after 2 years compared to a statistically insignificant change outside. The challenge is that you need DVLA data as well as residential info to measure it, it's really not something that can be counted by looking out the window at parked cars! What can happen in the meantime is that the car is used less, especially if a viable alternative (like it being safer/quicker to walk/cycle etc) has been offered. That's been shown in the first couple of tranches of data from Southwark and Lambeth (the data that you don't believe, naturally...) Pedantically, it isn't, it's the most congested city where Inrix have data and they don't have data for most of SE Asia or Africa where there are vastly worse cities for congestion. But whatever. Interestingly, the average speed in London hasn't changed much for decades, it's been around about 10-12mph since the 1930's. And most of the recent surge is down to this: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/number-of-cars-in-central-london-surged-60-after-sadiq-khan-stopped-enforcing-it-in-evenings-b1052632.html One of the few retrograde steps taken post-Covid. Make it easier / cheaper to drive and more people will drive. It's now (relatively) easy to get into town before 7am, park up, go to work, drive out again after 6pm. No charge. Or people will decide to go to a show / out for a meal etc in the evening and drive in when there's no CC and parking is cheaper. But then again, congestion itself can be a tool for change: https://www.dezeen.com/2023/01/11/congestion-roads-cities-traffic-sustainable-transport-phineas-harper/# The issue again is one of ease - you make it easier / cheaper to drive and more people will drive so congestion rises. It reaches a peak where eventually some people will say "bollocks to this, I'll walk/ride/get the bus/train etc" which then reduces traffic which then makes people think "oh it's quicker to drive, I'll get in the car". It's a self-balancing system - we all see this in action whenever you say "I'll leave early to avoid the traffic" or "I'll wait for a later train to avoid the crush". Behaviour modification in the face of adverse conditions. And without infrastructure changes, it'll keep doing that. If you add more roads and make it easier to drive, more people will drive. If you remove some roads and replace with a bus or cycle lane, more people will move to buses and cycling. People are lazy, they'll always take the easiest option. There are a few caveats around cost, reliability and journey time; some people are willing to pay more for a quicker journey for example.

That's a bit Conspiracy Theory even for you! It's not a change in category, it doesn't mean less scrutiny. It's a natural evolution of the scheme. You've filtered a junction so there's less traffic through it. You're now left with a shedload of empty tarmac so it gets remodelled, repurposed etc. More pedestrian space, a cycle lane, seating, activities, art installation, plants, space for cafes to put tables/chairs, bike/scooter parking... Can be any/all of that. It comes under various names - placemaking, streetspace, streetscape etc and it can be done either as an evolution of a traffic scheme or as a regeneration project in its own right. There are loads of examples in London, some big scale ones, some little more than a single parklet. They're quite "connected" sort of projects: LTN, CPZ, community spaces etc are all closely related and interlinked. As an aside, have a read of Lambeth's Kerbside Strategy which was published a couple of days ago. A lot of the sort of LTN, CPZ, placemaking etc is contained in that. Link in the tweet below.

That's a bit of a bait and switch manoeuvre. The conversation was about letting Blue Badge holders - by definition private cars - pass through the junction. I was using HH and Trafalgar as example of public realm projects. Since the junction itself never had any parking within it and was solely a through road between Court Lane / Calton Avene and the road through the village, you could easily argue that there's no loss of access at all since you can still park on Calton, on Court Lane or in the parking bays at the front of the parade of shops, at least one of which is specifically reserved for disabled and enjoy the same access via wheelchair or whatever mobility aid is used. The "square" itself is now easier to negotiate (for everyone, not just disabled) because it's not got any traffic going through it. As is the case with the area in front of HH, access is easier and safer for all because of the lack of traffic.

That's not what the Equality Act 2010 says - nowhere is it specified that Blue Badge holders should have unfettered access to drive anywhere and everywhere. As an aside, BB holders are already exempt from the Dulwich Village restriction northbound and the Calton/Townley timed restriction. The document that councils refer to is this one: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044542/inclusive-mobility-a-guide-to-best-practice-on-access-to-pedestrian-and-transport-infrastructure.pdf It's quite long and involved but it references the EA many times, not just for disabled people but for all groups and it identifies (correctly) that if you make an environment more accessible and welcoming for (eg) disabled people then it's usually more accessible and welcoming for everyone. "Dulwich Square" (or whatever it's called this week) has moved on from being LTN-based to being a "Placemaking" project: https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking Hence the seating, the activities, the cafe space and so on. You can call it by a variety of different things but it's not dissimilar to what was done (on a bigger scale) at Trafalgar Square when the northern side of traffic was removed to create a public realm area rather than a massive traffic island. Same at Herne Hill (the pedestrianised bit in front of the station was done in 2010 under a Regeneration scheme rather than a traffic control scheme but it had the same outcome). That's the idea at DS. Somewhere buried in the archives of the original (pre-Covid) traffic plans was a similar idea up at the Eynella / LL junction with the library as the main backdrop for a "public square" type area. Having vehicles driving through the middle of that is not helpful to anyone - especially disabled but actually also to everyone else using that space too. The more exemptions you put in, the more complex and expensive it is to manage and monitor and the more difficult it is to understand for drivers. It's far easier for ALL if there is a blanket block on the whole thing, that way it can't be misunderstood. And the council can't be accused of "raking it in" from fines. It's not unique - every pedestrian high street in the country operates in a similar way.

The sheer number of articles that they've published about Diana in the last 25 years probably makes them world experts on vehicles being inappropriately driven in tunnels...

Yeah, I picked up a fallen one along College Road the other day. Not sure if it had been left that way, blown over in the wind, knocked over by a pedestrian / scooter-ist / cyclist clipping it or bumped into by a car pulling a 3-point turn but whatever - it was still functional. I rode it down to the Village and left it by the bike stands there and it all seemed to be working OK. And it was removed from being in the way!

See my post above. No.

Which doesn't work for cargo bikes, bikes/trikes for the disabled, recumbents and, depending on the setup, some bikes with kids in/on/on tow. It's also a total pain if you're using cycle shoes with cleats And it's pretty much unenforceable.