LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[mr.chicken]

slarti b Wrote:

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

>

> Actually that is true of cyclists, particulalry

> commuterones. They tend to be mostly male, white,

> employed earning high income and middle aged.

Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any change?

[slarti b]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any

> change?

I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report 12 from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people who cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white, in employment, and with relatively higher household income". Happy with that?

The TFL reports are very informative, impartial and they also provide all the backing data. Unlike Southwark and our local councillors who are happy to rely on misleading selective data with no sources to support their assertions.

Yes I am a One Dulwich supporter. I would much prefer to see a holistic solution that does not split East and West Dulwich and that achieves the objectives of the OHS scheme. What does that have to do with your comment?

Edited to (i)clarify quote and (ii) to add that, as someone who has been commmuting by bike for 20 years I fit that cyclist profile myself :-).

[Wil72]

Meanwhile, is there a petition that we can all sign to show our dislike of what the council have snuck in the back door?!

Other boroughs have had their bollards removed- why aren't we doing the same?...

[Metallic]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> I love how the angry drivers who only talk to

> other angry drivers are convinced that everyone

> hates the traffic changes and only a tiny minority

> like it. If traffic changes make life worse for

> drivers, but better for non drivers, there's a

> good chance the majority of southwark residents

> will be in favour because the majority of us do

> not have access to a car. Page 11.

>

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma

> ny-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf

>

> Drivers are in the minority in Southwark.

>

> Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged, so

> it's particularly funny to hear the "WoNt SoMeBody

> ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEN/old people/cyclists

> (lol)/poor people" etc concern trolling. What's

> telling is the missing concern for the 4000 people

> dying per year in London due to pollution deaths,

> or any suggestion about how to stem the ever

> growing tide of traffic and attendant pollution.

>

> Tell you what drivers, people might take you

> seriously if you can actually come up with a plan

> which would actually fix the problem. "I paid for

> my car so I should be able to drive it" isn't a

> plan so much as a manifesto.

Oh. Ever actually thought that if there was better public transport in certain areas, that people wouldn't NEED a car? The reason many people don't need a car is because they live near multiple bus routes, can walk or cycle, or have a tube line.

[JohnL]

What is beginning to annoy me is that this looks like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are introducing this policy nationally.

Like Physician, heal thyself.

[JohnL]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero

> evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any

> > change?

>

> I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report 12

> from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people who

> cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white,

> in employment, and with relatively higher

> household income". Happy with that?

>

Those are the ones who fill in the surveys. It's not what I see on the street.

As a 14-16 year old I cycled everywhere but I didn't want people knowing what I was doing.

[mr.chicken]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero

> evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any

> > change?

>

> I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report 12

> from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people who

> cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white,

> in employment, and with relatively higher

> household income". Happy with that?

Glad you provided a source for your evidence, yes. It allows me to verify your claims. Somehow that quote doesn't appear to match the data. On P111, it gives a 50/50 split male/female. It does skew white (slightly less then car ownership), and as for higher household income, the large 20k-70k band is the highest, with the 0-20 and 70+ bands showing equal representation. There's a slight skew towards the employed, at 55/45.

Basically you've overinterpreted the data in your favour.

> I would much

> prefer to see a holistic solution that does not

> split East and West Dulwich and that achieves the

> objectives of the OHS scheme. What does that have

> to do with your comment?

Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't involve you actually specifying what this magical solution is, just that it's out there somewhere. This is the thing, none of the people objecting actually have a solution which is better or even as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

Metallic Wrote:

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

>

> Oh. Ever actually thought that if there was

> better public transport in certain areas, that

> people wouldn't NEED a car? The reason many

> people don't need a car is because they live near

> multiple bus routes, can walk or cycle, or have a

> tube line.

I bet if we block off a load of roads we'll fine that fewer people NEED a car than claim and on closer examination merely WANT a car. And what better way to improve public transport than to get lots of cars off the road?

[nxjen]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> What is beginning to annoy me is that this looks

> like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are

> introducing this policy nationally.

>

Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council to detract from Tory central Government who introduced the policy.

[Rockets]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What is beginning to annoy me is that this

> looks

> > like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are

> > introducing this policy nationally.

> >

> Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council

> to detract from Tory central Government who

> introduced the policy.

By this reckoning you must presume that Southwark would willfully implement any central government policy without any pushback at all.....

I think what you will find is that local residents are pushing back, and those residents represent every political persuasion, after years of the local council ignoring the views of those who are directly impacted by a host of measures they have implemented.

[Penguin68]

Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council to detract from Tory central Government who introduced the policy.

Sorry, the policy may be a Tory one (it's also a Labour one, as it happens, and rather more so) but the choice of roads is the Labour Council's - and they are choosing schemes which they favoured but, in many cases, the local residents didn't - so they are using Tory legislation to push through their own chosen road closure policies escaping public scrutiny or complaint by diktat. If you look at all their proposals to manage away cars well before the Tories came up with anything (which they are now implementing, and in spades) you see a clear continuity of thinking and planning. All the Tories have done is give them the big guns to railroad through their ideas.

[JohnL]

Government also saying they want us back in work (and the Telegraph making threats) - this doesn't look very joined up in the short term.

Maybe they want chaos - I was always told if you want to introduce change you cause a little chaos with the current system first :)

[JohnL]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council

> to detract from Tory central Government who

> introduced the policy.

>

> Sorry, the policy may be a Tory one (it's also a

> Labour one, as it happens, and rather more so) but

> the choice of roads is the Labour Council's - and

> they are choosing schemes which they favoured but,

> in many cases, the local residents didn't - so

> they are using Tory legislation to push through

> their own chosen road closure policies escaping

> public scrutiny or complaint by diktat.

If this doesn't work however I think we might see the return of the fuel escalator (with a push to electric).

and look who's back to block some roads (extinction rebellion are)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/28/extinction-rebellion-to-block-streets-in-london-manchester-and-cardiff

[Spartacus]

I always wonder how extinction rebellion get to these demonstrations. Do they use the public transport systems they so despise including diesel buses, diesel electric trains, or drive ?

Can't imagine they all walk to the events as that would take ages to get to them 😱

[Rockets]

Goodness me, are XR still actually around I thought they had extincted themselves following their last round of PR faux-pas: super-glueing themselves to electric trains and getting Emma Thompson to fly first class from LA to join their protest...? ;-)

Imagine their surprise when they get into the cities to begin their blockades only to find that the councils blocked the roads ages ago.

I don't know about anyone else but XR seem to have zero focus and never seem to know what they are trying to achieve. A bit of a rag tag group of anarchists and hippies who really have no direction at all and after reading that Guardian article they seemingly haven't used the lockdown period to get any.

XR does more damage than good when it comes to the anti-pollution lobby.

[slarti b]

Mr Chicken, you seem miffed I have produced the evidence you suggested was non-existent, sorry to disappoint you.

You question the interpretation of the data but that is TFL's interpretation not mine. And I trust TFL far more than Southwark's biased propoganda.

Anyway, i am away this weekend but happy to continue our discussion next week. Have a nice bank holiday.

[mr.chicken]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Mr Chicken, you seem miffed I have produced the

> evidence you suggested was non-existent

By "evidence" you mean a 1 line quote buried somewhere in a 276 page document for me to find. I on the other hand pointed to the specific page and specific numbers. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

> You question the interpretation of the data but

> that is TFL's interpretation not mine. And I trust

> TFL far more than Southwark's biased propoganda.

I trust my interpretation of the data, that's why I read the numbers.

Your counter argument appears to be along the lines of "nuh uh".

[JohnL]

There are younger riders that aren't commuting mind just cycling for the hell of it (I'd compare them to the skateboarders at the Grove) - such as these - somehow doubt TFL counts them though.

https://cyclingindustry.news/bikestormz-returns-in-june-calling-for-knives-down-bikes-up/

[Metallic]

John Crace in the Guardian yesterday (every area is the same!!):

Thursday

One of the joys of a staycation that I could do without is that it gave me the opportunity to take a whole load of garden rubbish to the dump. What made the experience even more punishing ? normally this is the sort of activity that gets relegated to a grumpy Sunday morning ? was that all the local rat runs to avoid the stationary traffic up Trinity Road in Wandsworth have been cordoned off and the six-mile round trip took well over 90 minutes. About a year ago, the council apparently did an online consultation ? I somehow must have missed the email alert that was presumably sent out to everyone in the borough ? but those that did engage tell me that the response was near enough 100% against the proposals. And yet Wandsworth have now used lockdown to make dozens of residential streets not just inaccessible to through traffic but to residents as well. The idea behind the scheme was sound enough: to promote greener travel by getting more people to use bicycles and to walk where possible. What the council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme even greener, the few arterial roads with two lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off into single lanes with the other serving as a cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys, that the council are trying to promote, that used to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30 minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and blue lights trying to get to the nearby St George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out of their way. Wandsworth insists this is only a short six-month trial and that it will be reviewed at the end of the year. No one is holding their breath.

[TheArtfulDogger]

For some reason I'm reminded of a joke

It begins something like

"why did Mr. Chicken cross the road?"

And if I remember it correctly the answer was

"To block off the highway to all cars"

But I could have it wrong so if anyone else has the right answer feel free to correct me.

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> John Crace in the Guardian yesterday (every area

> is the same!!):

>

> Thursday

> One of the joys of a staycation that I could do

> without is that it gave me the opportunity to take

> a whole load of garden rubbish to the dump. What

> made the experience even more punishing ? normally

> this is the sort of activity that gets relegated

> to a grumpy Sunday morning ? was that all the

> local rat runs to avoid the stationary traffic up

> Trinity Road in Wandsworth have been cordoned off

> and the six-mile round trip took well over 90

> minutes. About a year ago, the council apparently

> did an online consultation ? I somehow must have

> missed the email alert that was presumably sent

> out to everyone in the borough ? but those that

> did engage tell me that the response was near

> enough 100% against the proposals. And yet

> Wandsworth have now used lockdown to make dozens

> of residential streets not just inaccessible to

> through traffic but to residents as well. The idea

> behind the scheme was sound enough: to promote

> greener travel by getting more people to use

> bicycles and to walk where possible. What the

> council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the

> law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme

> even greener, the few arterial roads with two

> lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off

> into single lanes with the other serving as a

> cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys,

> that the council are trying to promote, that used

> to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30

> minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and

> blue lights trying to get to the nearby St

> George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as

> there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out

> of their way. Wandsworth insists this is only a

> short six-month trial and that it will be reviewed

> at the end of the year. No one is holding their

> breath.

You know things are bad when even The Guardian starts complaining about things that are supposed to be improving the environment....;-)

[Dulres3]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged

Are you using protected characteristics as pejoratives? I?m not sure how making yourself appear prejudiced against people based on race, gender and age furthers your argument.

> Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't involve you actually specifying what this magical solution is, just that it's out there somewhere. This is the thing, none of the people objecting actually have a solution which is better or even as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

I haven?t seen any solution from the other side of the argument that doesn?t involve severely disrupting people?s lives in the pursuit of an unobtainable goal. You?re always one road closure away from utopia.

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> You know things are bad when even The Guardian

> starts complaining about things that are supposed

> to be improving the environment....;-)

You could say this Guardian writer will now consider how to kill two birds with one stone when taking thinks to the dump and perform other tasks that include driving at the same time.

This is the plan - the moan is exactly what the response to the climate emergency is looking for and it's "nudge" theory I think. If they've gone to far they'll retract it a bit but it's exactly the effect they are looking for.

[Spartacus]

Johnl most people do kill two birds with one stone when going to the dump, be it going to the supermarket or DIY store after but the risk is by making the initial trip twice as long the impetus to do the second or even third task is lost as you need to return home first for the toilet 😱

[JohnL]

LOL A necessity that is much overlooked I agree :)

[Rockets]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > You know things are bad when even The Guardian

> > starts complaining about things that are

> supposed

> > to be improving the environment....;-)

>

>

> You could say this Guardian writer will now

> consider how to kill two birds with one stone when

> taking thinks to the dump and perform other tasks

> that include driving at the same time.

>

> This is the plan - the moan is exactly what the

> response to the climate emergency is looking for

> and it's "nudge" theory I think. If they've gone

> to far they'll retract it a bit but it's exactly

> the effect they are looking for.

But when does the nudge go too far...this looks awfully familiar to what is happening around here...the law of unintended consequences....

What the

> council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the

> law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme

> even greener, the few arterial roads with two

> lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off

> into single lanes with the other serving as a

> cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys,

> that the council are trying to promote, that used

> to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30

> minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and

> blue lights trying to get to the nearby St

> George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as

> there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out

> of their way.