LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[malumbu]

Not really sure why a number of you are going off at a tangent and talking about cycle safety.

So LTNs are to discourage driving, reducing the number of vehicles and in turn carbon emissions (climate change) and pollution emissions (improved air quality). If successful they will make those areas more pleasant for other road users.

By all means discuss whether they work, the downsides/unintended consequences, alternatives and the like.

The main danger for cyclists is other drivers. If drivers had it beaten (metaphorically) into them that the Highway code gives equal priority to all road users it would be safer for cyclists. I've cycled in the area for decades but not noticed any step change in driver behaviour. Many are of course respectful and courteous, and as pointed out many cyclists are also car drivers. Yet many consider cyclists don't have the same rights. The 20mph should have been that step change but yet to be convinced. No excuse saying - oh they were angry due to traffic controls and delays so accidentally drove into a cyclist.

My view is that there should be much better sharing of space and not the need for more segregation. Although I have long lost that argument with the authorities.

Happy to chat in more depth on the Lounge if you would like to join me there. My mate failed his driving test at the age of 18 one reason driving too fast in a pedestrian area (within the speed limit but the examiner considered that he was not being courteous. My instructor embedded give cyclist 6' (2 metres) in my mind.

If you are a cyclist concerned about cycling in traffic, want to be generally more confident or get back on a bike there are free lessons in Southwark and other boroughs. Fully recommended https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/free-cycle-training-for-all-is-back/

[Abe_froeman]

More trolling from Malumbu .

It's perfectly on point to note that the closed roads in east Dulwich do not create a cycle network or route and simply link up one dangerously congested and polluted main road to another. And to point that isn't safe or welcoming for children.

[charlieechodelta]

I disagree that they dont go anywhere. I cycle with 2 nursery aged kids on my bike. We use the LTN daily for nursery from E.Dulwich to other side of the village but also on the E. Dulwich end once across Lordship lane I can use quieter roads to get up to Peckham Rye, Burgess Park and Elephant and Castle. After crossing Croxted from Turney we use Rosendale to go towards Brockwell Park and beyond, and going South from the village can get to West Dulwich easily on the bike (plus I think Crystal palace would have been doable if I'd forked out for e-assist!) There are definitely improvements to be made in crossing some of the main roads but it feels like decent cycle routes are evolving gradually.

[alice]

Nursery aged children in such roads? Just wrong.

[Abe_froeman]

the state of the boundary roads right now is truly terrible. I wouldn't even cycle on them without my children.

[charlieechodelta]

Just to clarify - I dont cycle on them, either coss at traffic lights or dismount and cross as a pedestrian. Just saying that on the other sides are other decent routes for cycling. Good crossings / infrastructure on boundary roads would help join everything together

[malumbu]

Abe rather than slinging the T word at me why not get some bike training as I suggested. Not sure of the age of your kids but they can do Bikeability through school from Year 4. The more safe and confident cyclists on the road the better.

[geh]

rode my motorbike to and back from work today in the city. Have never seen so much potential carnage on the way home - three different cyclists running red lights, and nearly getting hit. Appalling behaviour, many racing as fast as possible, diving onto pavements, ignoring other road users and pedestrians.

I cycle too, but really? The roads are a shared resource, and it would be good for everyone to remember that and moderate their behaviour accordingly.

[hpsaucey]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> More trolling from Malumbu .

>

> It's perfectly on point to note that the closed

> roads in east Dulwich do not create a cycle

> network or route and simply link up one

> dangerously congested and polluted main road to

> another. And to point that isn't safe or welcoming

> for children.

You're seriously calling Malumbu's comments trolling????

Cambridge Dictionary definition: 'the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone:'

Seems to me 'trolling' is slung around far too often when someone disagrees with another's opinion.

HP

[Abe_froeman]

Of course it's trolling. This thread is about the LTNs in east Dulwich. People who live here (not Malumbu FTAOD) talk about their lived experience of those measures.

Malumbu then denies that experience and posts this:

"Not really sure why a number of you are going off at a tangent and talking about cycle safety.....

The main danger for cyclists is... BLAH BLAH BLAH. "

It's disingenuous, rude and very transparent

[Metallic]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > More trolling from Malumbu .

> >

> > It's perfectly on point to note that the closed

> > roads in east Dulwich do not create a cycle

> > network or route and simply link up one

> > dangerously congested and polluted main road to

> > another. And to point that isn't safe or

> welcoming

> > for children.

>

>

> You're seriously calling Malumbu's comments

> trolling????

> Cambridge Dictionary definition: 'the act of

> leaving an insulting message on the internet in

> order to annoy someone:'

>

> Seems to me 'trolling' is slung around far too

> often when someone disagrees with another's

> opinion.

>

> HP

Abe is correct.

[heartblock]

Children don't drive cars, so I'm not sure it counts as a modal shift and most of the children I bump into are cycling on the pavement - inside and outside of LTNs, but especially so on ED Grove - quite often with a parent on the pavement too.

My friend who used to cycle from New Cross to Chelsea, now does not cycle as her route is too dangerous since the LTNs - idling traffic, cars doing U turns and the fumes are terrible, she says that flowing traffic is safe, but this standstill traffic is dangerous - I have never cycled as a commute, so don't know the ins and out of it.

[heartblock]

2+ hours of idling pollution traffic in the morning and 2+ hours every evening on ED Grove and Croxted, it is terrible since Monday.

Just published - 16-year large cohort study reveals SHORT TERM NO2, PM10 & PM2.5 exposure is associated with increased hospital urgent admissions for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism - associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality.

SHORT TERM EXPOSURE - Thanks Southwark Council!

[slarti b2]

rahrahrah Wrote:

Just having a quick look at that ?report? by One Dulwich and it?s pretty clear that they?re straining every sinue to discredit data that they complain they haven?t even seen. I wouldn?t besurprised if the Council data is a bit iffy to be honest. But I would also put money on it being more reliable than anything from One Dulwich

(who?s even in their best efforts to undermine the claim of an increase in active travel, conclude there has been an 8% increase in cycling). If LTNs don?t reduce car use or increase active travel, why do even their most vocal opponents only find evidence that they do?

RahRah. You are now sounding desperate, and, quite frankly, pathetic in your attempts to disparage a well researched report just because you don't like the conclusions.

I have read the report and OneDulwich are using Southwark Council's own pre-closure monitoring figures (supported by Dept for Transport counts) to evaluate the effect of the closures, ie they are just doing what Southwark promised but hasn't done. I don't think they are "straining every sinue" (sic); though it looks as though they have had to dig deep since Southwark have done their best to avoid publicising the figures and certainly ignored them in their own report.

As for accuracy, it looks as though Southwark doesn't even know whether its baseline count figure is from Nov or Dec and has admitted the cycle count figure is an estimate. Combine that with comparing a cycle count for November (or December) with September and April makes Soutwarks claims of huge cycling increases pretty unconvincing and unreliable don't you think?

If the closure of Calton\DV junction has increased cycling along Calton Avenue by 8% then fine, lets acknowledge that but don't pretend it is an increase of 231% as the council has done. And of course, that 8% inrcease may have resulted from cyclists who have diverted from East Dulwich Grove because of the increased traffic volumes and congestion. And then lets consider whether any small increase in cycling outweighs the huge increase in congestion and pollution on the boundary roads.

You seem happy to accept that Southwarks Council's data may be "a bit iffy". Southark now have a proven track record of using erroneous and misleading data to support their pre-determined "data driven" conclusions. Do you really believe that is the best way to impose decisions that can adversely impact so many people?

Finally, please dont confuse "active travel" with cycling. Per Soutwark's own figures cycling is a small minority (round 10%?) of active travel. There can be a big % increase in cycling with only a small % increase in active travel. Likewise, an increase in active travel does not mean a similar increase in cycling.

[northernmonkey]

There was a point where you had conceded this wasn't true - and we'd got to the more factual position that it was 30-40 mins in the morning. But maybe its changed? So which 2 plus hours in the morning are you seeing queueing traffic. By 8:35-8:40 its pretty free flowing so is it starting at 6am?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> 2+ hours of idling pollution traffic in the

> morning and 2+ hours every evening on ED Grove and

> Croxted, it is terrible since Monday.

>

> Just published - 16-year large cohort study

> reveals SHORT TERM NO2, PM10 & PM2.5 exposure is

> associated with increased hospital urgent

> admissions for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary

> embolism - associated with a high risk of

> morbidity and mortality.

>

> SHORT TERM EXPOSURE - Thanks Southwark Council!

[heartblock]

Slati- the drilled down data is always interesting. I imagine as Southwark has not published the data on pollution levels yet - they are still paying a private company to use statistical and filtering methodology to interpret the raw data in such a way to obscure the awful, dangerous and unhealthy rise in pollutants on ED Grove, Croxted, Grove Vale and LL.

I also imagine the numbers of residents that want LTNs removed as they cause chaos on their roads are being massaged into fanciful ranges to help the message that LTNs are GOOD and residents who are under a pollution siege and are complaining are a very small MINORITY and therefore should be ignored.

It?s the same story for Peckham Green Park, currently being built on.

Residents - ?it?s a park, why were we not consulted?

Southwark - ?its the Flax-yard, not a park and you were all consulted 10 years ago, so no need to consult again?

I?m embarrassed to be a Labour Party member ☹️

[heartblock]

Oh and I don?t usually reply, but trust me - my walk from my flat to the station down ED Grove and the video I took was not an experience of free-flowing traffic at 8:45. The jam starts at 7:15 and lasts until 9:00 to 9:15 sometimes later since schools started this week. If anything much worse and much longer than the school run before Summer and now an evening of horror to add on ED Grove, I suppose more people going back to the office adding to the pain.

No need to lie about my road, my life or my experience... just a resident worried about my health as an asthmatic and sad for my neighbours with children who I have been friends with since they were children themselves and the lovely couple who moved into a flat over summer and who are very unhappy and dismayed to see this traffic that was not there when they viewed during school holidays.

[northernmonkey]

Interesting - wasn't the case running up to summer, but willing to see whether it is the case now - 7:15-9:15 is out of line with my experience but will keep an eye out over this week and ask others doing the school run to do the same.

Last year the traffic started building up just before 8am - so 7:55-8 and was then free flowing by 8:30-8:35 So 30-40 mins of congestion at a peak hour.

[heartblock]

For some reason much longer now, this morning started to dissipate around 9:00am thankfully, but yes much longer and far more static than before.

The evenings are a newer phenomen - seems to be later than the afternoon school run - which was bad before the summer break, but just started as schools went back, can only imagine that kids are back to school, so parents are back to the office.

I fully welcome any policy that reduces car use and reduces pollution - I have not seen any data that supports LTNs actually achieve this and my own experience is that they just push the problem onto another road and other people's lungs. I've know what cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease looks like and seen enough people die from preventable disease. I'm not sure why anyone would support a policy that put's neighbours at an increased risk of ill health.

[northernmonkey]

8:40 this morning - go pro footage shows no other car visible on the section towards the hospital and just beyond so 8:40 was clear.

This evening was similarly free flowing by 3:45. May have got more congested later but it sounds as though the 7-9am, 3-7 isn?t a consistent pattern

[Abe_froeman]

Yep, whenever there's a pro LTN cyclist there, the traffic parts like the red sea did for Moses

[heartblock]

No it's not consistent, some days are really horrific and some days it finishes earlier. Before the 5x LTNs there was flexibility in the system - a bit like collateral arteries in the heart, so if you have collaterals - if one get's blocked others take the flow and there isn't a major blockage and .....a heart attack is avoided. I suppose LTNs have removed the collaterals.

The problem is this - as is Croxted- EDG is a residential road, a school road, a health centre road, a bus route - when it is jammed and not moving - pollution goes up, buses stop, cyclists are endangered by U-turning cars and school children walk down a polluted road - schools are on this polluted road.

These boundary roads are not motorways, they may be designated as an A road, but they were lanes and groves..in 1886 when my flat was built - it was built on a residential road for railway and shop workers.

And - 40 mins, an hour, 2 hours of idling traffic pollution while children walk down ED Grove 5 days a week each term, is enough to trigger an asthma attack, reduce lung capacity, increase an inflammatory response that leads to cardiovascular disease or cancer - read the paper on short term exposure leading to DVT and PEs - it is compelling.

[Metallic]

Heartblock, northernmonkey is basically saying you are lying, I hope you realise that.

[slarti b2]

northernmonkey Wrote:

So - I cracked and read this 'report'.

Following my earlier response to you I have now read through that OneDulwich Report in more detail. Well researched and balanced though I think it pulls it punches a bit. The main issue that strikes me is, not the fact that Southwark's claims of a 231% increase are desparately over inflated, but that Southwark council officers seem to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing data to support Councillor's political agenda and mislead residents.

The fact that Soutwark published these misleading statistics just before the end of the Dulwich Streetspace consultation period (presumably to avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to revise previous responses in the light of the so called success of the road closures is absolutely outrageous.

This confirms a pattern of deceit by Southwark's Highways department which is surely not fit for purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors who willingly promulgate these false statistics.

Sadly we appear to live in a one party state with no effective scrutiny or opposition to our local (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and our (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for the (Labour) councillors.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I imagine...I also imagine the numbers of residents that want

> LTNs removed as they cause chaos on their roads

> are being massaged into fanciful ranges...

The numerous #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome conspiracy theories posted on here are adequate evidence that some people's imaginations are very active. For example:

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> Sadly we appear to live in a one party state with

> no effective scrutiny or opposition to our local

> (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and our

> (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for the

> (Labour) councillors.

...in which someone moans extensively online without consequence but compares themselves to a North Korean or Syrian dissident because they have a different opinion from the council about whether Calton Avenue is open to traffic. Get a grip, mate. The people of Aleppo and Pyongyang would give a kidney to have your problems. 🙄