Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, May 8, 2019.

  1. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    From that link 70kmh, 1 year jail, = 43mph
    We had one of those speed display signs on our street for a while that's supposed to get people to slow down. It displayed speeds up to 40mph or so but displayed blank if faster.

    That's correct - speed limits don't apply to cycles. Detail here if you're interested - https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/medi...imit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/

    Think about what happens if a car and a bike traveling at the same speed hit a wall and the damage that will be caused. Bikes really aren't dangerous, cars are.
    This is because Physics... Kinetic energy = mass x speed squared.

    Also think about the relative risk - a person on a bike really doesn't want to hit a pedestrian. If they do they'll almost certainly come off the bike and they'll likely be hurt at least as much as the pedestrian, if not worse. Driver regularly hit pedestrians without even noticing.

    This chart is kinetic energy of a car at 30mph vs a bike at 20mph but you get the idea...
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    snowy_again likes this.
  2. cuppa tee

    cuppa tee Well-Known Member

    I see, tbh you probably have me down as one of the motoring lobby but I am someone who drives only when strictly necessary mostly I will be on foot or bike...I have seen unbelievable acts of selfish stupidity from people using all modes of transport, one guy drove behind me bibbing like a maniac to get past for a couple of hundred yards through a quiet street with speed bumps, when he got past he stopped his car in front got out and came over to my door wanting a fight, in the same spot another dude threw a rock at my windscreen. There are plenty of selfish people out there like the two guys who decided it would be fun to sprint Sean Kelly style at a orange light on a pedestrian crossing at school leaving time going thru a group of kids and mums with proms at high speed in the process. Honestly I get there is a problem with cars but posting diagrams like the one above give cyclists a get out clause but if they plough into a little kid an old person or a dog at speeds approaching 40mph then they will do plenty damage as thus far vulnerable pedestrians are not using helmets as a rule.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  3. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    There's no excuse for cyclists cycling dangerously and at excessive speed but as pointed out above, the relative danger compared to a car travelling at the same speed is relevant, as is the added incentive for cyclists not to hit anyone because they will injure themselves too.

    In reality, 20mph is already quite fast on a bike and I think you'll rarely see a bike going a lot faster than that within London.
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  4. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    There are idiots on any form of transport. The difference is their abilty to cause harm. Regardless, I think you might be overestimating cyclists speeds by some significant margin. According to "Bicycling Magazine" the average Tour de France rider maintains an average speed of 25 to 28 mph on the flat. Few of us mortals can maintain more than 20mph for any length of time and even on the steepest hills of south London I don't think anyone would be approaching 40mph - they're neither steep enough nor long enough.

    It's a distinctly odd situation where cyclists are considered to be going too fast at 20mph but you consider 25mph in a 20 limit in a car to be ok....

    Stop and watch a set of traffic lights for a while - say the ones outside Brixton tube, and count the number of cars that pass the lights on amber or red on every sequence. Or the number of cars that start moving while pedestrians are still on the crossing - on flashing amber, let alone green.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  5. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Or stop on the crossing.
     
  6. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    Since this is a london-centric thread, I think it's worth noting that bylaws mean that the speed limits in the royal parks apply to cyclists as well as motorised vehicles.
     
    teuchter likes this.
  7. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    An update via email

     
  8. cuppa tee

    cuppa tee Well-Known Member

    Who was the sender ?
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  9. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The email you quote says get in touch by email. Can you post up email address?
     
  10. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Gramsci likes this.
  11. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    The email came from support@commonplace.is.
    But as Winot says the email to reply to is on the web page and is a Lambeth one.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  12. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Is that a lot? I don't know but the West Norwood one got over 1000 comments and the tiny Tulse Hill one* has gained 40.





    * Nobody seems to have commented about the fine description :rolleyes: :D

    upload_2019-6-15_12-39-32.png
     

    Attached Files:

  13. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    You didn't respond to my offer above - ..."from what you wrote 5 years ago we should be 95% in agreement on both why this is needed and what needs to be done. How about I buy you a beer and we have a good face to face discussion on this?"

    What's just happened in Notting Hill/Holland Park shows how difficult it is to make positive change. The depressing lesson of west London's lost cycle route No scheme will be perfect, making Atlantic Road much better for pedestrians and cyclists now may have a slight negative impact on a few other roads (until, hopefully, they are dealt with later). But being 'awkward squad' on this stuff DOES play into the hands of the reactionary petrolheads. All that sudden 'environmental' concern about the loss of a couple of trees on Holland Park Avenue - someone's pointed out on Twitter that Holland Park constituents consume 9000 trees every Christmas (presumably based on council disposal figures).

    I see from Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme to reduce pollution receives mixed reviews that that John Gordon of the Market Traders Federation wants a multi storey car park back on the Popes Road site and thinks that "pollution will nigh on disappear when ULEZ comes in in 2020".

    The MD of POP Brixton "He said you often get the line that people who come by car spend less money than people who come by other means. But for me that negates who is buying and I do worry that restricting traffic and parking means certain cultures are excluded from being able to do their shop”. Based on the recent car ad featuring Brixton I'm guessing he's thinking of Range Rover driving Fulhamites when he's talking about 'certain cultures' ( he mentions parking at North End Road in Fulham for 20p an hour)
     
  14. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I agree with what John says. He has done a lot of work over the years to support the market traders. A good guy.

    I thought the point of the ULEZ scheme was to reduce pollution? I don't know anyone who is against it.

    Like I said before certain measures will get backing. But not all.

    So Gordon is not opposing ULEZ but is sceptical of the liveable neighborhood. That doesn't make him a petrol head.

    If the Council is so concerned it should not have let Tesco's have car park on the Streatham site. The market traders lost their car park as Tesco's made Lambeth move the Ice Rink to Brixton on that site whilst the Streatham development was finished. I was part of the campaign to support the market traders keeping their car park.

    It was nauseating to hear Labour Cllrs go on about green transport in relation the Brixton market yet give Tesco's what they wanted.

    But of course taking parking from the market traders is easy. Standing up to big multinational like Tesco isn't.

    In practise Green issues are implemented on the less well off whilst the corporates aren't affected.
     
  15. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Will you meet me for a beer to discuss this Gramsci? I'm buying.

    Measures that don't inconvenience anyone will get backing - they're also the ones that will be ineffective. ULEZ is likely to improve pollution but it isn't going to 'nigh on disappear' as anyone who has been into central London since April will tell you.
     
  16. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    What type of market customers are the ones that used/ would use a car park?

    Is there evidence that closing the multistorey carpark has impacted negatively on the market?

    Good post from co-op on a previous thread (from before the carpark was demolished) here:


    The traders do, of course still have a car park, just a much smaller one.

    I don't want Tesco etc to be given planning permission for supermarkets with large carparks, like the Streatham one, either. But Lambeth making a wrong decision there doesn't justify supporting a wrong decision in Brixton town centre.
     
    thebackrow and Winot like this.
  17. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This is more backwards thinking: people have developed shopping habits that are car-dependant, therefore we must accept car dependancy rather than getting people to change their habits.

    As ever - what do working people within the Carribean and African communities, who don't own a car, do? Shouldn't we be making things work for them?
     
    thebackrow and snowy_again like this.
  18. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Back (momentarily) to speeding - sounds like there was a 'community road watch' on Lyham Road last week between 5 and 6pm one afternoon.
    "We spotted 58 drivers doing 25 and above in a hour, 13 drivers recorded at over 30mph. 4 over 35mph, 1 over 50mph"
     
    snowy_again likes this.
  19. sleaterkinney

    sleaterkinney Well-Known Member

    ULEZ is likely to be full of holes and rich people will just pay it anyway. Atlantic/Railton road is really congested as it is, especially at the weekend and this guy wants to bring more traffic in?.

    We should be designing places to be less car centric and towards other types of transport.
     
  20. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The loss of the Brixton market car park and the Streatham Ice Rink/Tescos development are linked.

    The market traders lost the car park to facilitate the development of the Streatham development.

    This was a decision by the Council under pressure from Tescos.

    This isn't forgotten.

    The decision to allow Tescos a car park and the loss of Brixton markets car park can't be separated out.
     
  21. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    None of this makes an argument for reinstating a large car park in central brixton.
     
  22. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I never said it was.

    The point Im making is that the decision to get rid of the Brixton market car park and the Ice rink/Tescos project are linked.

    What I am saying is that it was unfair to get rid of market car park to help Tescos have one in Streatham.

    One of the justifications I got from a Cllr was that this was green move.

    The Streatham development was joint project between Lambeth and Tescos. Lambeth didn't insist on car free development.

    So I entirely sympahise with John Gordon.

    The other reason that the car park was demolished is that Lambeth Regen regard the site as a development opportunity.

    At the time Regen were thinking of demolishing the Rec and International house.

    Then doing a partnership as in Streatham. Giving the developer the Rec site and getting a new smaller Rec on what is now Pop.

    This was stopped for time being due to community opposition.
     
  23. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    So do you think the car park should be reinstated, or not?
     
  24. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I suspect pop is the stalking horse for a load of flats.

    Car park to flats = outrage

    Car park to pop to flats = most people have short memories.

    Alex
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  25. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    What I think should happen is a level playing field.

    Tesco's at Streatham and Sainsbury's at Vauxhall should have their car parks taken off them.

    Then they can compete with Brixton shopping area on a level playing field of minimal parking for cars.

    The car park at Sainsbury's at Vauxhall is gross. Its so big its never even half full.

    Why is Lambeth giving big operators this massive car parks when it claims to be into reducing car use?

    Btw today I did my shopping in Brixton. The street market for fruit and veg, Nour Cash and Carry for special ingredients.

    I think taking on Tesco's and Sainsbury's would be a good thing.

    Support small business like Nour Cash and Carry.

    Secondly briing in rent controls to stop evil landlords upping rent on small shopkeepers.

    If the aim is to reduce car use then supporting small business is the way to go.

    And that isn't eateries. Its market traders etc.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  26. Xeno

    Xeno Well-Known Member

    Some small traders favour the car parks. I'd be interested to know what the Nour people think of the Tesco car park on Acre Lane. I was surprised to find that, when the new Sainsbury on the corner of Tulse Hill and Brixton Water Lane was at planning stage, the traders on Tulse Hill welcomed it because it would bring in more people. My initial assumption was that they would be opposed to the new store because it would swallow up their customers. As I understand it, many Brixton traders like the Tesco car park because it is effectively a free car park for all Brixton town centre shoppers. LIkewise, the Clapham Sainsbury's for Clapham shoppers, although you have to get a voucher endorsed at the till to park there. By allowing driving into small town centres like Clapham and Brixton, where it ought to be banned, the big stores actually have a common interest with many small traders. We should justify cutting car parks on traffic-reduction and quality of life grounds alone. Don't always expect small traders to be on your side.
     
  27. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    My view is that as a basic principle all parking should be chargable - all of those of us who walk, or even take a taxi home from, supermarkets with parking are effectively subsidising those who drive there and paying higher prices. Parking is not free to provide.

    However, I'm not there is anything legally Lambeth Council could do to either force charging or to take their car parks away - how would they practically do it? Compulsory purchase the car park land? Would cost millions and almost certainly be legally challenged by the supermarkets who would have far more money to spend on lawyers than Lambeth. I dont' think theres any way to force them to charge.

    The Tesco site on Acre Lane will be redeveloped at some point. I'm sure I've read or heard that there is a long term plan to clear the site and rebuild with an underground car park and flats above - the current site is a hugely inefficient use of the space and I'm pretty sure that bit of Acre Lane is zoned for at least 5 floors (what's Mr Knight got permission for for the Diamond Plumbers site?). There's a *lot* of money to be made on that site.

    The one that Lambeth really shouldn't have allowed is the Sainsbury's opposite Hootananny. It's too large a store for the size of the car park, generates a load of car trips that makes the whole area more dangerous for peds and cyclists on a junction where two arms (including the BWL west) have no pedestrian phase. It should have been given permission with disabled parking only. Cycle parking there is a joke as well - a tiny number of spaces in a location where they've been repeatedly driven into so they're unusable.
     
    shakespearegirl likes this.
  28. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    :confused: I use them regularly without problem.
     
  29. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Not that simple. In Streatham Tesco's have started to implement time limits. As they saw people were were using the Tesco car park as parking space to use shops in Streatham not only Tesco's. Tesco's have started to introduce technology to mean that one has to shop in the store and not just use it to access other small business.

    I said if Brixton market is to lose its car park ( as it did) then Tescos should lose theirs.

    I said that Brixton market lost their car park to facilitate Streatham development with big car park for Tescos Beijing finished.

    I also said the. Streatham development was a partnership development between Lambeth and Tescos. So why didnt Lambeth insist on car free development?

    I really wish posters would actually read the content of my posts.

    I want a level playing field.

    Why does this keep being mis interpreted?
     
  30. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The Streatham development was a partnership.

    The Council did it to get a new Leisure centre and Ice Rink.

    It was their political choice.

    So they had a choice.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice