fast movers

red bus on road near big ben in london

Photo by Daria Shevtsova on Pexels.com

The urban myth that you need a car in London to get around, is really a myth. Scientific examination of transport has proven the following:

The following numbers came up or moving people around town:

  • 22.000 people using trains
  • 19.000 people walking
  • 14.000 people cycling
  • 9.000 people using buses
  • 2.000 people using private cares.

Read about all the details on New Scientist from where I gotten those numbers.

I had a dad who worked just down the road and needed to take his car to drive there. So that car dependence is just a little bit of an addiction.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan will let us have a car-free day on 22. September 2019. I love the idea, better than the whinging Boris Johnson always did talk about needing large family saloons all the time.

Apparently Talk London is consulting on having car-free days once a month. Bring it on.

London Transport is amazing, with Central Line trains running every minute.

 

 

Advertisements

Health first

action activity adult athletes

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The best part about being a human is being as healthy as possible. At least that is what we are striving for.

Here in Tower Hamlets, school children are thought to have 10% less lung capacity, compared to children in rural areas.

Tower Hamlets schools are normally encoached in busy traffic areas, with roads, right, left and centre.

For example Bishop Challoner School is unfortunately a good example of a school being in a totally traffic polluted area. The school is judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted because of exam results only. The school is siutated in Commercial Road.

For Ofsted good results are everything, they do not consider other health considerations when they judge a school, which I think is very sad indeed.

On the other hand, Raine’s Foundation school, is a secondary school situated near Victoria Park, an area classified as almost suburban, with leafy streets, access to Victoria Park for PE and much less traffic, as roads around the building are one lane only.

Raine’s Foundation school is classified as ‘in need of improvement’ by Ofsted and because of this, parents won’t apply to send their kids there.

Parents as well as Ofsted only care about exam results.

Tower Hamlets Council  now wants to close Raine’s Foundation school because of the poor exam results, poor in comparison to national results.

Why does nobody care about the children’s health? Isn’t it better to run a school in a healthy area because the kids will be better off throughout their life, if their lungs breathe healthy air?

I personally want to fight to keep the school open just to give children the chance to attend a healthy school. Because sacrificing health in exchange for good exam results will have long-lasting effects on the children’s health.

Access to green spaces, a nice playground, a nearby park will have a great effect not only on children’s mental health but also the physical health.

I want everybody to write to their MP to ask for support to change the classification criteria for schools in respect of a healthy environment.

(t(rain)ed) under

It is heartbreaking to read about the disruptions the weather causes to people and transport of goods. train lines are rained under throughout Britain and even electrical fires have broken out. Yet it is just part of the normal earth warming patterns that we see increased rains, more flooding and all the problems that come with it.

Yet I do wonder whether people in our government planning departments are plain stupid or just try to ignore the warnings.

I think that the Mayan calendar marked the change in the environment correctly in that it predicted it as a known pattern to occur on earth. Perhaps earth warming is always caused by some type of over population of a species that happens to be pre-dominant on earth at that time, whether its dinosaurs or humans.

Yet we see plenty of more plans to build high speed train lines between London and Birmingham, built Crossrail in London and all just because men like to play with trains. It is quite and totally predictable that Crossrail will suffer immense flooding with rising seawater levels and that train lines in the centre of Britain are likely to suffer increased flooding due to higher rain and groundwater levels.

Yet the government feels fit to announce that they plan to spend billions on new high speed train lines. Estuary airports are likely to be built but what when tsunami style waves hit it, what if water levels rise generally, how much can the whole airport rise with it and what are defences for storms?

Simultaneously the government has announced they want to have less critical thinking in universities instead of more.

I think Britain is an excellent example how jobs for the boys help to bring decision-making processes to stupid dimensions. It’s not just boys, its also the whole network of company and personal relations that brings silly decision making processes about. It is definitely wrong to accuse any particular individual of Cronyism and lose follow on libel battles at High Court level because the practise goes through society like a mesh generally and one simply cannot point out single individuals who are involved in it.

Has anybody seriously considered better water based transport services *like boats? Obviously the cargo industry has catched up with new demand and developed huge container ships. Many more human travels could be switched to boats and house building could change to floating homes for example. There could be new industries like plumbing points for house boats for example or homes that could float and stand on firm ground.

Obviously life has to slow down in some respects to avert away from air based fast travel to more slow but manageable sea based transport. Also what does the rising of sea levels do to the value of land deeds?

*This content was added on 23/12/12

London is full of it – aeroplanes

I sat at my local playground yesterday and was realising that up above in the sky there were many aeroplanes ascending and descending. By the size of the planes and direction, I could determine which ones came from London City airport and could probably guess, which ones came and went to Gatwick or Heathrow. Quite a lot of aeroplanes went overhead. In fact I think that the whole of London now has become a fly zone as there are several airports in and around London.

Looking overhead at times I could see 2 planes crossing paths and I started to think what would I do if I saw a crash overhead. Luckily the crossing paths were from planes who were above and underneath each other and not on the same height.

Yet it startles me to think that there would be even more air traffic above and that with an increase in volume also the risk of accident would increase with it. I can only compliment Boris Johnson for his strict opposition on a third runway for Heathrow.

The row on air traffic continue but is it not possible to ask people to change their commuting and communication habits rather than built more and more airports?

I saw only 1 helicopter in the space of 2 hours but plenty of very large passenger air planes that seem to be carrying people rather than goods. Why do people have to fly around so much and how can we avoid it. Of course there are attempts to build green planes but still the volume of traffic means that more and constant alertness to avoid collisions is needed and that is the more immediate serious danger that always arises through high volume traffic, we see it on our roads.

I feel I am entitled to be concerned because as a resident in East London I am directly underneath the fly path of several airports.

Pleasing tax-payer politics

The motion to reduce petrol prices is a typical voter-friendly political strategy. Of course people are fed up having to pay those high petrol prices because they need the car to get to work and do the shopping. But it is the lifestyle that is forced upon them by the way our society is set up. Our society is not set up to be friendly to the environment and avoid use of fossil fuel, it is set up to use lots of fossil fuel and as much as possible and to use cars to burn it.

Society could be organised differently in that we are employed locally or business is not concentrated in out–of-town shopping centres, but that is just not the way it is. There is going to be a clash because we are already not complying to the EU clean air and environmental goals and might have to pay heavy fines for busting our allocated limits on pollution whilst at the same time the car drivers want cheaper petrol prices. It is not possible to achieve both because cars still burn fossil fuels and industry is not fast enough churning out different models of cars. Even if they were, people would not have the ready cash to buy them quickly anyhow.

Shows that we are slow and hard to change quickly with changing demands. The way our society is set up, is so rickety, that it takes over 100 years to make a structural change, that is not long enough to please the current environmental requirements. Industry still beliefs it is best to use as much fossil fuel as possible and to rely on it to make a quick buck. Yet the long-term damage that the sucking up of fossil fuels causes to the planet have not yet even come out, they create lots of cavity and that creates lots of earthquakes.

UK in breach of EU pollution rules since 2005

It of course does put the accusation of the Greens, during the last mayoral elections, in which they accused Boris of not caring for families, into a realistic context. Reading that the UK does not care about pollution levels, which causes a big health issue, hurts. I quote from the article “There are no air quality actions for Defra or the Department for Transport in their departmental business plans,”  and few government departments “appear to understand the importance of the issue”.

What is happening is that a few cycle lanes have been built, which are dangerous and already cost lives because recently 2 cyclists got killed within a week on those so-called safe cycling lanes in Bow.

The whole traffic infra-structure is not changing at all. The roads are made for cars and the congestion is still the same. I would not want to walk or jog near a busy road in London, which is chock-a-block with cars and lorries at most hours of the day.

The rule that parents should walk their kids to school is not enforced at all. Parents are allowed to park illegally outside of schools to drop off their children. Just in my locality cars are parked illegally every time there is a big event in York Hall. Traffic wardens could make a fortune for the borough if they towed away and ticketed all the illegally parked cars and so discourage them from coming on roads to the venue, but they don’t because if they come by car they come to York Hall.

There is no effort to effectively reduce car traffic in London at all.

It would be much better if traffic would change by reducing the amount of road space for cars and increasing cycle lanes to make them wider, therefore squeezing out car traffic because there is no proper indication that environmentally friendly cars are to be sold en mass.

Of course changing the road traffic structure would cost major investment and that is money the government doesn’t want to spend as cycling traffic doesn’t make much money and politicians do want their wages from tax payers. Politicians are the most selfish breed of employee I know.

Last autumn for airmiles

I totally welcome the move to scrap the air miles scheme. It does make air travel more expensive and therefore prevents at least some people from flying. For environmental reasons I love this very much indeed. Also it is ethically wrong in my view that the purchase of shopping over loyalty cards helps people to get some services or goods cheaper than others. That puts an unethical pressure on people to use loyalty cards, therefore impeding on their right to privacy.

In any case, I am very unhappy about the data collection over loyalty cards that is taking place. There is hardly anything theses days that people still can do without being observed or listened to. Our shopping habits are carefully monitored. Everything is measured. If you have a water meter they even monitor the amount of water coming in and going out of the flat. They see exactly what electricity and gas you use and of course your voice and other communications are also listened to.

But the need for this has been brought on by constantly increasing social fluctuation and people do not know each other any longer face to face. It is travel that increasingly makes our lives more dangerous as it can transport illegal items, dangerous people and disease around the world and it contributes considerably to earth warming by polluting the air.

People that do want to keep in touch can find other ways to do so and maybe they consider moving location more carefully if visiting will become more expensive later on. Hopefully this stop on the air miles scheme indicates a more local conscience for us from our local politicians and businesses.

The air we breathe

Whist we see plans to raise the pension age, the warning is published in a very small, hard to see article in the Sun that the pollution levels in London have reached crisis point and are below par for the 36th consecutive time.

That is a good cause for a very justified protest to hold demonstrations on the pollution levels in London instead of protesting about all other kinds of matters. Yesterday I saw outside of the high court bikers protesting about charges for them. Yet, we have to get the pollution levels down. It is important for our health.

Problems arising from pollution are not immediately apparent and often affect us only years later. Studies have shown that children living near busy roads have problems developing their lungs properly. Asthma is becoming more common in big cities.

Britain as a whole has allowance for 35 bad air days per year only but that goal has not been reached. Whilst we are busy thinking only about football goals, we should spend more time thinking about healthy living goals.

Bad air days, don’t seem to bother us as much as bad hair days but what we have inside of our bodies should be more important than what we have on top of our heads.

We have to change our attitudes and see taxation of fossil fuel burning vehicles as a necessary step to improve our health and not as a punishment.

Cycling irresponsibly

Whilst we see cycling getting a promotion in many tabloids I just wondered this morning, how I should cope with cyclist as a pedestrian.

Trying to cross a road on a busy junction I saw 3 cyclists coming down the road. I stood in the centre aisle and was too afraid to cross the road because of cyclists unpredictable behaviour. Indeed 2 of the cyclists followed the road the proper way, waiting to join the main traffic at the junction, just as they should do, whilst the third one suddenly swerved off the road, taking a route into the opposite side pedestrian crossing onto the footpath.

How is anyone supposed to work around erratic behaviour like that? Cycles can kill children and recently an elderly pensioner was killed by a cyclist.

Only yesterday I crossed a quiet side street with a child in my hand, when suddenly from the left a cycle cut us off at great speed and came around the corner. I have very good hearing but could not hear that bike. It was a matter of luck that the child in my hand was not hit by that cycle.

Whilst it worries me to read that cyclists get killed in traffic, it makes me wonder, from my own experience (I worked as a bike courier in central London) whether cyclists couldn’t avoid problems if they followed the traffic rules and behave like any other road user and use the roads or cycle paths in the prescribed method rather than ride wildly across pedestrian areas or very fast down quiet roads.

Being a cyclist is not a free ticket to being irresponsible but a ticket to responsibly using the roads and avoid using fossil fuels in the process.

Commuting

Statue dedicated to the traveller in Oviedo, Spain

Statue dedicated to the traveller in Oviedo, Spain

If this “parking tax”as proposed by Sadiq Khan, Labour’s new minister for transport, as reported by the Press Association and picked up from Yahoo News, gets the go ahead, we can look forward to the re-structuring of traffic soon unless the car industry comes up with cars that are so environmentally friendly and cheaper to run that the amount of an eventual £350 per year of parking tax could be recouped by the users.

Initially the “parking tax”is scheduled to start off with £185 per year, to be paid by companies that provide car parking spaces for employees. This scheme is to be tested by Nottingham City Council. Is it coincidence that we get the nasty Sheriff of Nottingham scenario again? But really Sadiq Khan should be on the side of Robin Hood shouldn’t he, as Labour Party minister who opposes extradition treaties with the US!

What are the real motives for this new tax grabbing incentive? Could it be that Mr Khan is genuinely concerned about the environment and wants to discourage use of the car to curb omissions or does Mr Khan think that the use of car parking spaces take away from potential housing being built?

I always thought that companies could use their property any way they liked but that will now be challenged by this new initiative of the Labour Party.

On speculation what such a new tax would create we first of all have to look at the fundamental change of rights of owning property as the business owner will be told you can do anything that is not environmentally and health detrimental and you cannot provide car parking spaces for employees unless you pay us a tax on it.

For traffic we get the gist is that the revenue created shall be used for a tram system. Not too bad a motive I suppose but as of now traffic – and I speak as a resident of London – is already having problems sharing the thoroughfares sensibly and happily between buses, cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

Our roads are set up to allow for cars and buses in the middle, the sides are reserved for pedestrians but increasingly shared by cyclists who do not want to keep to the roads. We do have an “on your bike” campaign going on as well and I just wonder whether the whole traffic infrastructure should be re-thought to allow more driving space dedicated to cycles, whether the direction of policies is going to be, ban cars from the roads, unless they are public transport and only allow company vehicles or otherwise pedestrians, trams, buses and cycles on the thoroughfares or should we strive for battery driven cars that need to be parked somewhere at the cost of parking tax.

Not an easy decision but having taken to foot and public transport my point of view is that I miss clarity on national policy about transport issues, this also being stirred up even more by the current dispute over rail franchising and profitability of the rail network.

We get the keep to the time tables movement who do not understand that unless you have roads like in American cities, wide and not narrow as in London’s Bank area, we cannot keep to regular times, that also put pressure onto the argument and caused time displays of buses predicted arrival times, which are not reliable as I could see.

We get the back on your bikers who cause cyclists to use pavements as cycling routes.

And there are many more transport initiatives and all those taken together, cause our local environments to be riddled with transport thoroughfares of one sort or another. If things go on like this we have to invent floating houses so we can escape the constant flow of traffic in front of our doors or virtual schools so our children avoid being run over by bikes on the way to and from school.

The emphasis of our lives is not where we live anymore, our homes are not the centre of our lives any longer and business activity goes on around it, our homes are mere containers from which we emerge to go somewhere else to work , shop or holiday and hence all our homes are surrounded by some sort of constant traffic. With all those schemes traffic tends to increase rather than decrease and our local economies nonviable with fast food outlets becoming the norm for social gathering rather than pubs, who would also find the parking tax unaffordable. With fast food outlets the gathering can take place in the street, hence we see so many congregating around them at night time.

We should examine what is the idea of a home and how many hours we spend out of it and live out of suitcases, and take-away cartons. Surely and originally a home was a permanent place to live and work activities took place around the home either by rural production or economic activity but this is apparently no longer so, and since we have created the travelling citizen, government have become viable institutions but without it, they could not fatten their MP’s to the extend they do now.

Blog Stats

  • 52,705 hits