What are peoples thoughts on proposals to close to traffic Turney rd, Court lane & Rosendale rd??

[Penguin68]

If you know that it's a cycle lane, not a footpath, then you wouldn't let a child run out there, no different to not letting them run into the road I would think...

To put it simply - anyone living on your chosen 'cycle way pavement' side would have to cross the road in order to walk up or down their own street - crossing roads is inherently dangerous. No one could safely work outside their own house (for instance clipping hedges) if they were on the cycle side. Where would you put bins on collection days - these would now block your 'cycle way'? If you were loading children etc. into cars on the new cycle path side, could you do so safely?

[henryb]

The main reason the cycling infrastructure is being improved is because people voted for it at both London and Borough elections - or at least voted for people who had it as part of their manifestos. Same goes for the 20mph limit. Specializing a few of the 60,000 odd London streets to prioritise cyclists isn't going to cause traffic chaos other than maybe some local differences but it seems a reasonable way to improve things and you have to remember this isn't the only transport policy being implemented.

If you want a party that thinks the solution to London transport problems is more private car use and pandering to every whim of the car lobby - then I think UKIP is the only one.

[Pevara]

Got any suggestions yourself that would keep the larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not, I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than wholesale change.

However often the cycle lobby may say it, there is no concrete evidence that closing down larger roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the central assumption on which all of these proposals appear to be based.

It will merely diverts both traffic and the localized air and noise pollution onto smaller roads that are less capable of handling them, and causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some of those very smaller roads from which our hypothetical independent 10 year old will commence cycling to school.

What is more plausible is that any larger road closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution (and certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move more slowly through congested smaller roads and journey times increase (even if only by a few minutes). It really isn't rocket science.

rodneybewes Wrote:

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

> So we solve the problem of traffic deaths injuries

> and pollution by squeezing cyclists into the paths

> of the real non-injuring, non-polluting section of

> the population - pedestrians. Whilst leaving cars

> as they are. Tremendous work.

[Pevara]

henryb Wrote:

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

> The main reason the cycling infrastructure is

> being improved is because people voted for it at

> both London and Borough elections - or at least

> voted for people who had it as part of their

> manifestos. Same goes for the 20mph limit.

> Specializing a few of the 60,000 odd London

> streets to prioritise cyclists isn't going to

> cause traffic chaos other than maybe some local

> differences but it seems a reasonable way to

> improve things and you have to remember this isn't

> the only transport policy being implemented.

>

> If you want a party that thinks the solution to

> London transport problems is more private car use

> and pandering to every whim of the car lobby -

> then I think UKIP is the only one.

I don't believed any party suggested in its manifesto that cycling infrastructure should be improved by diverting motor traffic down side streets (or implementing plans that would achieve that result). I wouldn't vote for such a policy. Most wouldn't. So please stop suggesting that these plans are the result of any informed voter choice.

[rodneybewes]

Pevara Wrote:

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

> Got any suggestions yourself that would keep the

> larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not,

> I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than

> wholesale change.

>

> However often the cycle lobby may say it, there is

> no concrete evidence that closing down larger

> roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will

> reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the

> central assumption on which all of these proposals

> appear to be based.

>

> It will merely diverts both traffic and the

> localized air and noise pollution onto smaller

> roads that are less capable of handling them, and

> causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some of

> those very smaller roads from which our

> hypothetical independent 10 year old will commence

> cycling to school.

>

> What is more plausible is that any larger road

> closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution (and

> certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move

> more slowly through congested smaller roads and

> journey times increase (even if only by a few

> minutes). It really isn't rocket science.

>

>

No I don't have any suggestions that would keep the amount of roads available to motor traffic the same as they are now. The idea that there is a "status quo" is laughable - there isn't one. Traffic is going up because driving a car is cheaper in real terms than it used to be and the population is increasing. And the amount of space available to cars is either staying the same or going down. Can you tell me where the status quo is in that?

I would employ a number of measures - take more road space away from motorised traffic and give it to pedestrians, runners and cyclists (or pogoists for all I care, anything that is non-polluting), increase the congestion charge out to zone 3, increase vehicle excise duty (which is based on the amount of pollution a vehicle creates) for areas of high pollution (London being extremely high) and use any revenue gained to create tramlinks crossways across London and increase cycling routes, penalise single car use and incentivise car pooling, have a city wide metropolitan run uber service with big discounts for the elderly and the non-ambulatory, double decker trains, charge by the mile driven rather than the current flat rate....

There are absolutely loads of things that can be done to help reduce the huge impact of pollution that don't pay homage to the non-existent "status quo", if only there was some imagination to implement them. Instead what will happen is there will be a death by a thousand cuts of punishments to road users to agonisingly drive them off the roads - all stick and no carrot. Because if there is one thing that politicians surely know it's that Londoners will quietly accept a few thousand extra deaths a year through pollution but they'll froth at the mouth if you openly say you'll interfere with their car use.

You'll probably say this is utopian but it doesn't really matter. Come back in 15 years time and see if any of this is implemented or if traffic is smoothly flowing through London at the current levels or more. I know where my money is.

[Pevara]

Oddly enough, I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said.

Except for the strawman you set up on status quo - I was clearly referring to keeping roads open both ways (not closing them), which is an objective status quo.

One hopes over time that the fuel use becomes cleaner (electric/solar) but I can only speculate on that.

However, I still don't see closing major roads as part of any solution - simply creates more problems for others (including non-car users like me living along smaller residential streets). Don't see it as car user versus cyclist - which is what this has become. There are other stakeholders as well.

For instance, I am neither a car owner (user, yes, I use taxis once in a while) nor a cyclist. I don't have a stake in the car user versus cyclist or pogo stick debate. I do have a stake in any debate which encourages cycling by pushing cars down smaller streets. This makes me sit up and ask whether it solves any problems while inconveniencing hundreds of folks like me. Let me be very clear when I say the answer is no - it is only going to make air pollution worse and increase stress levels by displacing noise pollution down smaller roads. You want to reduce deaths due to pollution - I bet you that won't do it!

rodneybewes Wrote:

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

> Pevara Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Got any suggestions yourself that would keep

> the

> > larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not,

> > I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than

> > wholesale change.

> >

> > However often the cycle lobby may say it, there

> is

> > no concrete evidence that closing down larger

> > roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will

> > reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the

> > central assumption on which all of these

> proposals

> > appear to be based.

> >

> > It will merely diverts both traffic and the

> > localized air and noise pollution onto smaller

> > roads that are less capable of handling them,

> and

> > causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some

> of

> > those very smaller roads from which our

> > hypothetical independent 10 year old will

> commence

> > cycling to school.

> >

> > What is more plausible is that any larger road

> > closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution

> (and

> > certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move

> > more slowly through congested smaller roads and

> > journey times increase (even if only by a few

> > minutes). It really isn't rocket science.

> >

> >

> No I don't have any suggestions that would keep

> the amount of roads available to motor traffic the

> same as they are now. The idea that there is a

> "status quo" is laughable - there isn't one.

> Traffic is going up because driving a car is

> cheaper in real terms than it used to be and the

> population is increasing. And the amount of space

> available to cars is either staying the same or

> going down. Can you tell me where the status quo

> is in that?

>

> I would employ a number of measures - take more

> road space away from motorised traffic and give it

> to pedestrians, runners and cyclists (or pogoists

> for all I care, anything that is non-polluting),

> increase the congestion charge out to zone 3,

> increase vehicle excise duty (which is based on

> the amount of pollution a vehicle creates) for

> areas of high pollution (London being extremely

> high) and use any revenue gained to create

> tramlinks crossways across London and increase

> cycling routes, penalise single car use and

> incentivise car pooling, have a city wide

> metropolitan run uber service with big discounts

> for the elderly and the non-ambulatory, double

> decker trains, charge by the mile driven rather

> than the current flat rate....

>

> There are absolutely loads of things that can be

> done to help reduce the huge impact of pollution

> that don't pay homage to the non-existent "status

> quo", if only there was some imagination to

> implement them. Instead what will happen is there

> will be a death by a thousand cuts of punishments

> to road users to agonisingly drive them off the

> roads - all stick and no carrot. Because if there

> is one thing that politicians surely know it's

> that Londoners will quietly accept a few thousand

> extra deaths a year through pollution but they'll

> froth at the mouth if you openly say you'll

> interfere with their car use.

>

> You'll probably say this is utopian but it doesn't

> really matter. Come back in 15 years time and see

> if any of this is implemented or if traffic is

> smoothly flowing through London at the current

> levels or more. I know where my money is.

[rodneybewes]

Pevara Wrote:

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

> Oddly enough, I don't disagree with a lot of what

> you've said.

>

> Except for the strawman you set up on status quo -

> I was clearly referring to keeping roads open both

> ways (not closing them), which is an objective

> status quo.

>

> One hopes over time that the fuel use becomes

> cleaner (electric/solar) but I can only speculate

> on that.

>

> However, I still don't see closing major roads as

> part of any solution - simply creates more

> problems for others (including non-car users like

> me living along smaller residential streets).

> Don't see it as car user versus cyclist - which is

> what this has become. There are other stakeholders

> as well.

>

> For instance, I am neither a car owner (user, yes,

> I use taxis once in a while) nor a cyclist. I

> don't have a stake in the car user versus cyclist

> or pogo stick debate. I do have a stake in any

> debate which encourages cycling by pushing cars

> down smaller streets. This makes me sit up and ask

> whether it solves any problems while

> inconveniencing hundreds of folks like me. Let me

> be very clear when I say the answer is no - it is

> only going to make air pollution worse and

> increase stress levels by displacing noise

> pollution down smaller roads. You want to reduce

> deaths due to pollution - I bet you that won't do

> it!

>

>

Ironically I am a car user and an occasional cyclist (I'm finding it increasingly dangerous sadly...). I'll see you in 15 years to collect my winnings! :)

[The Pedestrian]

Yes- you've got it! so, time to sign and share the petition!

Stop the Quietway! It won't work for anyone!

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cycle-quietway-7-from-elephant-and-castle-to-crystal-palace-re-think-the-route-for-all?recruiter=520725569&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

[The Pedestrian]

Totally agree! sign the petition!

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cycle-quietway-7-from-elephant-and-castle-to-crystal-palace-re-think-the-route-for-all?recruiter=520725569&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

[The Pedestrian]

The trouble is, Southwark is against buses too. Just check out their policies. You wouldn't want to be old, have heavy shopping, a walking stick, a wheelchair, a buggy, not feel like cycling in Southwark hey!

[minder]

Yes it's hard if you want to drive a car or walk in Southwark (or anywhere) as cyclists are in the right always!

They can jump lights and do whatever they want, including having no lights and breaking speeding limits.

[apbremer]

These PC morons won't be happy until we're all riding donkeys to Sainsbury's. Insane meddlers.

[Nigello]

I increasingly think that walking (or using a wheelchair/mobility scooter) is a better option than any other. Yes, it is time consuming and sometimes unpleasant if it is too warm/cold/wet but packed buses (yes, with people eating on them!) and busy roads (which may put people off cycling) mean that being under your own steam is preferable and not that much slower at times.

What is Southwark doing for the pedestrian (apart from painting double yellows around corners)?