Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Leo Chesterton, Sep 29, 2014.

  1. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.
     
    Angellic likes this.
  2. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

  3. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Some boroughs offer free cycling training. Don't know whether it's been hit by austerity.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  4. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    I did do one of those courses, but they don't have trucks to roar alongside you for practice etc
     
  5. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

  6. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    But .. Oh ok.
     
    Crispy likes this.
  7. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Yes, it is. Which is why creating a network of quiet routes for cyclists could make a big difference to encouraging more people to start cycling. It's a shame so many Londoners seem to want to trash the potential for that though isn't it?
     
  9. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

  10. LadyV

    LadyV Well-Known Member

    Yup I guess I do! Although I don't really mind either way tbh, what will be will be.
     
  11. LadyV

    LadyV Well-Known Member

    No if anything I would prefer to make it less palatable for drivers to drive down that section of road and reduce the number of cars, so make it one way for cars and remove some parked cars to create more space for everyone who wishes to use the road, cars, bicycles, skateboards anything, at the moment it's not good for anyone.

    And we're on the same page about unnecessary car journeys, there are far too many of them, it's just the definition of what is unnecessary that we're still working out! :)
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  12. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    But what about the people who have parked near their homes on that stretch for ever? You are going to take this privilege away from them, you Stalinist?

    And if you make it one way, then aren't you effectively making a road closure (in one direction)?

    Or, if you're proposing another road takes the traffic in the opposite direction, then aren't you introducing a load of non-local traffic onto a previously quiet road?

    The reason I make these points is that virtually any measure you take to meaningfully change things is going to result in lots of people popping up with essentially the same kinds of objections that we saw in the trial.

    It's easy for people to dismiss the trial scheme saying "oh but we would support some kind of different traffic reduction scheme instead" and give some non-specific statements about alternatives, and then, when someone actually has to think up a new scheme that works, they will face those same people who will be back dismissing it for much the same reasons, and that revised scheme won't necessarily be any easier to bring about than the one we've just discarded.

    My prediction is that what will now happen is the whole thing will just get quietly forgotten and nothing will really be done at all for the next 5 or 10 years. Or, we will get some kind of half-baked scheme that has no meaningful impact on traffic levels and transport habits, because the council is too scared of the road nutters.

    But I will be pleased to be proven wrong.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  13. LadyV

    LadyV Well-Known Member


    Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!

    As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.

    When it comes down to it, you know what, I'm not a traffic planner and have claimed to be, I haven't got a bloody clue but at least I've suggested things rather than just bashing down everything anyone suggests, what have you suggested? None of us know really what will work and what will not, including the so-called experts, they bugger it up too.

    Nothing is going to work for everyone but whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't. However that's not to say that they shouldn't be encouraged to leave their cars at home when they can.

    And of course people are going complain when something affects them but if the council learn from their mistakes, maybe progress can be made by taking things slowly.

    The failure of this experiment was not just about the closures but the way it was carried out from start to finish and the blame for that lies at the feet of the council and its staff. As for it's cancellation, the primary reason it was cancelled was because the Fire Brigade complained, without that objection, even with the petition, I think that Jennifer Braithwaite could have made a bold and probably unpopular decision to keep the closures in places to collect more data and to allow it to bed in properly and hope that everyone just got on with it. But she could not ignore that objection, she would be setting herself up for a huge fall if she had. The LFB wouldn't have made that objection if they weren't having issues getting around as the closures did cause some odd bottlenecks that an engine would be delayed by, no one would want to deal with the possible consequences of an engine being delayed.

    I think it would be sad if the general plans for improvements were forgotten about because it wasn't just about traffic levels, it was about brightening up the whole area and that has now been soured. Hopefully the more general improvements to the area can be reintroduced without the confusion of road closures and accusations of gentrification but only time will tell.
     
  14. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    This is where the new cycle highways will make a difference. Problems is they will be good as commuter routes but not navigating the city.

    My view, as I cycle around City and West End all day, is that being aggressive is not how to do it. Thats common with all drivers I know. If someone cuts u up just let it go. Bad for ones blood pressure. Bit of courtesy for others makes for Karma. If a Black Cab looks like its going to pull in to get a fare I let them do it. Its not being aggressive its learning to have a "second sense".

    The problem with cycling in City/West End is that most users do it all the time and know the junctions. Drivers imo are much better at noticing cyclist than they used to be. However if u do not "know" the roads traffic is pretty unforgiving if u hesitate in West End.

    Being a bit scared of traffic is healthy. I err on side of caution and never had an accident.

    Its not cycling aggressively its making sure drivers can see u. Donts imo are do not cycle whilst listening to ipod, look around at regular intervals and learn to "read" the traffic. ie I look at drivers to see if they have eyes on road or are on there mobile, chatting etc.

    Also think ahead. If it looks dodgy pull back and see what to do. Its not a race.

    Also , and I know this is not an option for all, is to go fast sometimes. ie at Hyde Park Corner. You really have to get going. It actually annoys car drivers less.

    To "learn" the City try going on a Sunday when its empty. One thing people who do it all the time is that they know when lights will change and which lights change first. ie at Bank.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
    Beasley, bimble and LadyV like this.
  15. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I agree. There is little on parking available in central London on estates , unlike LJ estate, so I agree car ownership is low. As alternative central London is well covered by Car Clubs.

    The Cycle highways. Cant praise Boris more , even though I detest Tories, for them. I have started to use the finished bits and its so different to not have to be in traffic.

    Met Boris once on his bike.
     
    Beasley likes this.
  16. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    teuchter is making the same point and reservations about what will happen now as I have.

    That any alternatives will have vocal opposition. ie stopping parking on sections of Loughborough road. Bringing in road closures in the "middle class" areas such as Hinton road to deter through traffic.

    The thing about the cyclist, who are derided here by some, is that one less car driver and one more cyclist frees up road space and is decreasing pollution. I have seen big increase in cyclist commuting to work in City and West End in past years. With all the posts about "middle class" cyclist on expensive bikes I have taken more notice of bikes and the people who ride them. I do not see this. A lot of the new commuters are riding middle of the range bikes. Some I know are using the ride to work scheme were u can get bike through the company one works for at a discount.
     
    teuchter and Crispy like this.
  17. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Yep. I ride an £800 bike, but I'd never have spent that much money myself.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  18. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    I think you've misinterpreted the direction of my post somewhat; it was a reference to the fact that I have been described as a Stalinist on this thread for proposing such things as making relatively minor adjustments to people's "right" to park and drive their privately owned cars on the public highway without restriction.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  19. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This notion that drivers "share" the road - what's your measure of a fair share? Is your fair share of roadspace determined by the size of vehicle that you choose to drive on it? If you own a car does that mean your fair share of roadspace is ten times that of a bicycle owner, or bus passenger?
     
  20. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    And on the subject of the Fire Brigade objection - here's what it actually amounted to (the email correspondence is in the appendix to the Lambeth report) -

    On the 9th of October (so still very soon after the start of the trial) the station manager writes to Lambeth saying

    What this looks like to me is anecdata, supplied in the earlier period of the closures and all relating to congestion, which as we all know subsided significantly as time went on. Also, as I mentiond previously, I was not aware of "gridlock" on Herne Hill Road nor Hinton Rd at any point (in fact I think I remember a claim at some point that the car wash business on Hinton Rd was in danger of going under because their passing trade had diminished so substantially).

    Lambeth then, rightly, questioned these claims, asking fo specific evidence to support them, to which the reply was:

    So, they are saying all they've got is personal accounts, and they are also saying that an 8 week timeframe is too short to provide meaningful data.

    Lambeth then write to them on the 5th of November pointing out the issues with the temporary lights on the HHR junction and also the fact that since these were resolved, traffic has been flowing much better. They ask:

    And the response is:

    So that's it - the objection from the LFB was that they had personal reports of congestion on CHL from early in the scheme, but no specific data on the actual impacts on response times, they stated that the time period was too short to come to useful conclusions, and no comment on the fact that the congestion had eased since the date of their initial comments.

    Is anyone going to try and argue that that's anything other than a very weak and poorly substantiated objection? Looks to me like Lambeth could very easily have decided as much, and continued the scheme, if they had really wanted. Instead they used this as their get-out clause; their way of justifying copping out when I think we can all see that the reason for their decision was what they percieved to be public pressure.
     
    snowy_again likes this.
  21. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    For the record here are the actual responses from the other emergency services - not what certain people were trying to pass as fact on facebook etc with claims that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc.

    Here's what the ambulance service said -

    Here's what the police said (with my bold)

     
    Gramsci likes this.
  22. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    I really like this idea, will do that thanks.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  23. Beasley

    Beasley Active Member

    Don't forget the annual Ride London (was Freecycle) events -- they're normally good fun!
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
    Gramsci likes this.
  24. critical1

    critical1 All views expressed are definitely my own.

    What this looks like to me is anecdata, for the record the actual responses from the emergency services are documented and officially recognised - not what certain people here trying to pass as anecdata... The report from the ambulance service clearly states that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors... All made submissions, as you probably also did.

    This all looks like more spin teuchter...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  25. critical1

    critical1 All views expressed are definitely my own.

  26. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    What I posted were the official representations of the emergency services, all published as appedices to the Lambeth report here.

    Stop lying, please. The ambulance service does not clearly state that lives were being put at serious risk. It states what I have posted above. Anyone can follow the link to check this.
     
    critical1 likes this.
  27. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    I'm going to risk being called reasonable again .. think Teuchter is right when he says
    As at every step of this story though, I don't see the sense in blaming 'the car lobby', or the ambulance people, or me, or the broken traffic lights for its many failures - I can only see a long catalogue of screwups at the town hall.
     
    irf520, critical1 and Beasley like this.
  28. irf520

    irf520 Well-Known Member

    Once one of the emergency services raised an official objection, the council would have exposed themselves to legal action if they had overridden it and subsequently someone died or was seriously injured owing to emergency service response being delayed.
     
    critical1 likes this.
  29. critical1

    critical1 All views expressed are definitely my own.

    Does not clearly state, only says clearly... I think it's clearly a case of semantics.

    (Maybe only moderate risk!!!, but that's ok according to you teuchter)
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  30. critical1

    critical1 All views expressed are definitely my own.

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