LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Manatee - if you've come on here to debate things

> then debate things but keep it civil - you are now

> becoming rude.

You seem to confuse arguments you are unable to successfully counter with rudeness. On the other hand you don't seem to consider yourself dog piling on other's unfounded accusations as rudeness, so it seems you are an exceptionally poor judge of things. Personally I consider many of the things you have said to be rude. Would you like to lounge the thread by discussing that at length?

> Perhaps you're aiming to get banned

> for a third time - you might want to rethink your

> approach to ensure forum longevity?!

Well, I do keep arguing for LTNs and that is the height of rudness. Have you been reporting my posts? We both know the ban was reversed. The admins clearly know I'm the same person and have decided to let me stay after all.

> This has all been debated and plenty of

> alternative solutions have been proposed - just

> because you arrived late to the debate doesn't

> mean we have to rehash it for your benefit.

First, remind me which option One Dulwich asked people to vote for?

Second, I claim that you have not proposed any practical alternative.

> LTNs

> are not the solution to the challenges we all

> face, never have been never will be - as I showed

> you to rebuff your claim that Waltham Forest has

> been a success - it has been a success inside the

> LTNs not outside.

You claim as such. Your claims are not facts. Traffic has increased throughout London since then. You're also talking about 3 miles away, which is tough to tie back precisely. Here's the problem you are completely uncritical of any data that supports your cause and the opposite for any data that says something you don't like.

> The same pattern is repeated at

> every LTN - reductions inside, increases outside

> (even the interim council data shows this trend

> and it is missing data from the roads most likely

> to be soaking up the displacement). So unless

> you're planning on making the whole of London a

> massive LTN

Sounds good to me! The population is growing, the roads aren't and London is grinding to a fume filled standstill. Drastic action is needed.

> then there will always be winners and

> losers and that is not at all equitable.

There were winners and losers before the LTN. There will be winners and losers for every choice. Doing nothing won't prevent there being winners and losers. Undoing the LTN will cause winners and losers. Your practical solution which you won't tell me about will cause winners and losers. You seem to think there's a magical option for which there will be no winners and losers. Such an option does not exist.

> And therein lies the problems with LTNs they are a

> very blunt and ineffective instrument to try and

> tackle pollution and actually create more problems

> than they solve.

So you claim, but you state opinion as fact. I claim they are one of the few practical options and they solve more problems than they create.

> Private car ownership has

> declined in London

It's gone up in Southwark. Don't confuse ownership proportion with total ownership which is affected by population size.

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/licensed-vehicles-type-0

> and whilst you claim it's about

> getting cars off the roads it actually isn't - it

> is more about getting vans and PHVs

In what way are PHVs not cars?

> off the roads

> as they are the problem and throwing roadblocks in

> doesn't deter those vehicles.

You appear to be claiming that people who find driving takes too long will happily sit in a taxi for the same amount of time as opposed to finding a quicker method of travel or an alternative destination. That's a strong claim, I'm sure you have some evidence to back that up. The closed junctions apply just as much to ubers. It's not like they can teleport over the concrete blocks. And I believe the bus gates allow black cabs only.

Delivery vans are more of a problem, but more action is needed not less.

> Not sure if you read

> the Guardian article I linked to but it is worth a

> read to help understand what the problem is and

> where it is coming from.

I read the article.

[Rockets]

Manatee - you are sharing data that doesn't back-up your claims, in fact it validates my points not yours.....

You claim that car ownership has gone up in Southwark (which it has year on year) but you will probably not have noticed the caveat put into the dataset: Significant changes in the number of vehicles from year to year can often occur when companies with a large number of vehicles change their registered address.

Look at the figures - the overall trend in Southwark is down not up over the last 10 years and down significantly from the peak in 2004.

And one final question - how do LTNs solve the problem caused by delivery vans and PHVs exactly or what further action do you suggest to combat that problem?

P.S. I am afraid it wasn't me that reported you and no, I won't indulge you in your attempt to get the thread lounged! ;-)

[hpsaucey]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure that even the most pro-LTN people are

> suggesting that LTNs are THE answer. They're not,

> they are ONE OF a suite of measures to reduce

> traffic. Some complementary - it's quite difficult

> to do X without doing Y in some areas of traffic

> design, some can be standalone and there's an

> element of needing stick and carrot as well.

>

>

> So unless you're planning on making the whole of

> London a massive LTN then there will always be

> winners and losers and that is not at all

> equitable.

>

> Is it equitable that the roads are too dangerous

> for kids to ride to school?

> Is it equitable that people who do not own cars

> find it difficult getting public transport because

> it's held up by private cars taking up

> proportionately vastly more road space than any

> other for of transit?

> Is it equitable that car owners get massively

> subsidised public space to leave their vehicles -

> space that then cannot be used for any other

> user?

> Is it equitable that car owners (in spite of the

> "I pay road tax, I pay fuel duty" argument) are

> vastly subsidised by the public purse - some of

> that subsidy in the form of addressing

> pollution-related issues?

>

> LTNs, broadly speaking, work pretty well and

> they're a cheap and easy thing to implement at

> short notice - they can also be cheaply and easily

> modified or removed at short notice. There's

> nothing special about Dulwich in terms of LTNs or

> traffic, the principles are exactly the same as

> anywhere else - you have to remove as much of the

> traffic as possible, you have to enable and

> empower active travel. If you don't remove the

> traffic, you can't push active travel unless

> you're also putting in segregated bike lanes

> because, much as there will always be a few folk

> who can tolerate riding in traffic, most people

> can't or won't. And a comprehensive network of

> bike lanes takes years to put in and also attracts

> just as much vitriol as LTNs.

>

> Same with all the other nice ideas like trams,

> extending the Tube line, changing every car to

> electric, autonomous cars... It's all stuff that

> won't happen before 2040, if at all. Extending the

> Santander Cycles scheme - that might come by about

> 2025 or so with a bit of luck.

>

> Pollution on a lot of London's roads has been

> above legal limits for years and you don't lower

> it by "spreading it around a bit". If you removed

> every LTN in the area tomorrow, the air pollution

> on EDG would still be above legal limits because

> it was well before the introduction of LTNs.

> Hardly "clean air for all".

> You can't start bleating about woodburners or

> buildings being worse - maybe they are in terms of

> air pollution but equally no-one has ever been run

> over by a speeding woodburner, nor is there a

> queue of them outside my house in the morning rush

> hour.

>

> You can argue semantics about cars being fine but

> PHVs and vans being not fine (?) but it's still

> splitting hairs. You just need less traffic. That

> addresses air and noise pollution, road danger and

> congestion all at once.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[Bicknell]

wheres the air pollution data we were promsed by the end of july?

[heartblock]

There isn?t less traffic on my road, there is 26-35% more comparing pre-Covid, pre LTN levels and then after LTNs went in and during a time that traffic went down across London, including in non-LTN boroughs.........

and where is the pollution data we were promised at the end of July, why is Southwark withholding the data for East Dulwich Grove?

[northernmonkey]

I don't think Southwark is withholding data 'for East Dulwich Grove' given it hasn't released any further data at all.

I wasn't clear at the meetings I went to that an exact date was given for the pollution data, but it would be helpful to see it along with the further traffic volume data that was discussed.

[Abe_froeman]

There's more on mine too, east of Lordship Lane, but the cuncil didn't bother, or didn't think to bother measuring the obvious impact on roads like mine that these closures would have.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think Southwark is withholding data 'for

> East Dulwich Grove' given it hasn't released any

> further data at all.

>

> I wasn't clear at the meetings I went to that an

> exact date was given for the pollution data, but

> it would be helpful to see it along with the

> further traffic volume data that was discussed.

Does anyone know why all the data wasn't released at the same time? There have been, for example, monitoring strips on Underhill Road for a very long time now.

[Bicknell]

@northernmonkey

youre right that no exact date given, but they said twice by the end of teh month (july).

central to the whole thing so need teh data

[northernmonkey]

Don't disagree - everyone would prefer the data to be released with a clear statement about when further releases will be. Also would be good to understand if monitoring is in place but no data reported why this is the case.

[Metallic]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Rockets and ex just summed up really well

> in polite civilised terms the main points of the

> opposing views. After pages and pages of mud

> slinging this is certainly refreshing to read.

>

> My personal take is that LTNs have been tried, but

> they have created at least the same problems with

> air pollution that they replaced (just in

> different areas). I believe it?s worse because

> there is so much more idling now. Before, fhe

> traffic in the area most definitely flowed more

> freely - albeit using a wider variety of roads.

> It should now be the people who decide which is

> the lesser of two evils? I reckon the consultation

> will show most in favour of removing them.

I agree.

[heartblock]

Who lives on 'main' roads that have traffic from lovely leafy roads diverted by gated communities....https://youtu.be/Pn0ENEuze8k

[hpsaucey]

Throwing this into the congestion mix - car super size me and road space attached.

[Abe_froeman]

Those extra 28cm comprise crumple zones to protect pedestrians/cyclists in the event of a collision. You can't really be advocating for cars to go back to 1960s safety measures (and thus dimensions)?

[northernmonkey]

No - I think those advocating for change are advocating for far far fewer of them to be driven around within cities!

Also - I'm not sure that many of the cars that are driven these days have better outcomes for pedestrians - in fact SUVs have much worse outcomes. Thats if the driver can see you at all. With SUVs forecast to represent 40% of all new car sales this is something that should concern us all.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities

[Lowlander]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those extra 28cm comprise crumple zones to protect

> pedestrians/cyclists in the event of a collision.

> You can't really be advocating for cars to go back

> to 1960s safety measures (and thus dimensions)?

OP gave a source to 1998. Not the 1960s.

[hpsaucey]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those extra 28cm comprise crumple zones to protect

> pedestrians/cyclists in the event of a collision.

> You can't really be advocating for cars to go back

> to 1960s safety measures (and thus dimensions)?

Nope - I'm really not. The two posts above this have got it...

HP

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cars have not got bigger to ?protect pedestrians?. Their excessive height means head and upper body injuries. SUVs are twice as likely to kill pedestrians in a crash and they?re much more likely to mount pavements, crash through barriers etc.

Crumple zones protect those in the car. If a car hits a pedestrian at a speed where the front crumples, the pedestrian is in big trouble.

There is absolutely no good reason to be filling the streets with pseudo military vehicles and if people are worried about pollution and congestion, they should consider campaigning against private SUVs in cities, rather than schemes that reduce car use, reduce accidents and increase active travel.

[first mate]

I do wholeheartedly agree with this. SUVs seem to be expressions of vanity and status; OTT for city living.

[Abe_froeman]

Nonsense and hyperbole again from rahrah.

For a long time now as a matter of law cars have had to accommodate collisions with pedestrians/cyclists.

Most fatalities and serious injuries were caused by the pedestrian's head impacting a hard solid part of the car. More often than not this was the engine block where the head would bend the thin sheet of metal that was the bonnet and then hit the immovable top of the engine.

Sometimes it was other parts under the bonnet such as the tops of the suspension.

To minimise the number of serious injuries caused to people outside the car it is obligatory to build in crumple zones that protect people from the hard parts.

The only other option employed is to fit an airbag under the bonnet that is triggered in a crash and pushes up the bonnet to protect the pedestrian.

All of this adds bulk to the engine compartment.

None of this is employed on military vehicles.

It's Also worth bearing in mind that the chances of being killed in a traffic accident in the boundary roads of our LTNs are practically zero because the traffic barely moves.

[northernmonkey]

I don't think they're vain or status seeking - more they've become normalised and accepted. Many manufacturers have phased out normal 'family sized' cars and only produce SUVs so they've essentially become 'what people drive'. There is also the fact that the growing number of SUVs already on the streets makes it more likely that people will buy SUVs too - because the 'higher position makes it easier to see round the other cars' etc. Also people believe that they're safer for them driving and their families as occupants.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Abe - SUVs are twice as likely to kill pedestrians in a collision. How is their size helpful in terms of protecting pedestrians exactly?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128.amp

[Earl Aelfheah]

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think they're vain or status seeking -

> more they've become normalised and accepted. Many

> manufacturers have phased out normal 'family

> sized' cars and only produce SUVs so they've

> essentially become 'what people drive'. There is

> also the fact that the growing number of SUVs

> already on the streets makes it more likely that

> people will buy SUVs too - because the 'higher

> position makes it easier to see round the other

> cars' etc. Also people believe that they're safer

> for them driving and their families as occupants.

Yeah, I agree with this. They have no place in cities though.

The point on people feeling they?re safer driving around London in massive off roaders makes me think of this

[Penguin68]

SUV as a term covers everything from Hummers to 'small' SUVs which effectively replace (and indeed many are smaller) than standard people carriers, formerly the go-to car for those with families - and much smaller then large estate cars. They have a very similar profile to vans, including driver height. For older people they are much easier to get in and out of (which believe me is an issue) - and they are also much easier to take move babies in and out of. There are luxury (and big) SUVs of course. If a 'proper' SUV they may have some off road capability (less use around town perhaps, although I have been grateful for 4WD on the few snow days around here). But I had to park up in a muddy field recently and 4WD was a boon. As it was recently on motorway driving in intense rain. Their rather stately profile additionally probably discourages 'boy racer' mentalities, which hot hatches certainly don't. 'SUV driver' is increasingly a short hand for 'people of a class I don't want to associate with' - and such a usage is a lazy shorthand for the class warriors that occasionally lurk on these pages.

[redpost]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nonsense and hyperbole again from rahrah.

>

> For a long time now as a matter of law cars have

> had to accommodate collisions with

> pedestrians/cyclists.

>

> Most fatalities and serious injuries were caused

> by the pedestrian's head impacting a hard solid

> part of the car. More often than not this was the

> engine block where the head would bend the thin

> sheet of metal that was the bonnet and then hit

> the immovable top of the engine.

> Sometimes it was other parts under the bonnet such

> as the tops of the suspension.

>

> To minimise the number of serious injuries caused

> to people outside the car it is obligatory to

> build in crumple zones that protect people from

> the hard parts.

>

> The only other option employed is to fit an airbag

> under the bonnet that is triggered in a crash and

> pushes up the bonnet to protect the pedestrian.

>

> All of this adds bulk to the engine compartment.

>

> None of this is employed on military vehicles.

>

> It's Also worth bearing in mind that the chances

> of being killed in a traffic accident in the

> boundary roads of our LTNs are practically zero

> because the traffic barely moves.

Yes of course, despite breaking all the laws of physics, making a car/suv 3 times heavier than a city runaround and thus requiring 3 times the stopping force is for the benefit of pedestrians.

range rover sport = 2539kg

vs

nissan micra = 635kg