Rockets

Street lighting, paving slabs, better bike parking....anyone? Or is it all about the parking.....it's always about the parking...all the world's ills can be brought back to parking...

Because I am not sharing the pavement with faster moving vehicles that can do me real harm if they didn't see me and hit me. I am taking a commonsense and pragmatic approach to joining the carriageway with bigger vehicles. Your argument seems to be based on...there are no rules to say I should so I won't...unless you're applying for a Darwen Award I doubt it is a smart approach to cycling.

I don’t why some on here take every conversation as a means to try and attack car use. Funny how no-one has anything to say about the variety of sensible improvement suggestions for Lordship Lane yet are fixating on widening the pavement by removing car parking spaces. I mean, has anyone got stuck outside Odonno’s for more than a few seconds….or has anyone been stranded there for days…….;-)

Did you read it, what do you think? You may have to pause occasionally but it's hardly the end of the world and no different to most other high streets at a weekend.

This thread is hilarious. Just because it doesn't say you must wear bright clothing why wouldn't you? When I cycle I have a day glo, reflective builders bib that I bought from a builder's supply store for a few quid. It's no fashion statement but it fits in my pocket and over anything I am wearing and I wear it because it increases the chance of other road users seeing me, especially at night. That seems entirely sensible and pragmatic. I also marvel at some cyclists seemingly going out of their way to decrease the chance of other roads users seeing them. Not sensible and pragmatic.

Errr...because the last time the council surveyed Lordship Lane shops 22% said they had driven....that is all...goodness me P.S. that was the last time the council ran such a survey.....and it is here (I am out and about so cannot attach): Source: Southwark Council https://share.google/5ZZZbi6iG3BDEAx5j

Here we go again…..goodness me…relentless. Zero point trying to have a conversation when it gets skewed like this. So, maybe let’s just encourage the council to run another survey as I do not think they have done one for 10 years so we can get an accurate picture. When I get a chance I will also post the survey the council did 10 years ago so you can all see for yourselves what was said.

But where did it say they are driving to work there and then shopping? 22% of the respondents said they had driven. Look, we know some are trying to use this to lobby for the removal of parking spaces but those spaces (which are growing more limited each time the CPZ creep takes place) are vital to the thriving Lane as we know it now. Please, drop the parking bone and go pick up another - there are far more pressing needs for Goose Green end of Lordship Lane if the council were to spend any more on it....move it to Dulwich Village and millions would have been spent by now! 😉

Yes I am not sure there are many Southwark traffic management experts suggesting the closure of Lordship Lane - the chaos that would create with buses alone would be awful! It appears an utterly farcical idea born out of ideology rather than pragmatism and, of course, begs the really basic question of how do bus users then get to Lordship Lane - get off at Dulwich library and walk or wait for the bus to divert all the way round to Goose Green, get off there and walk?

What in the report (that was based on a survey done on a Tuesday and a Saturday - that concluded footfall is far busier on a Saturday) suggests that conclusion? It states it draws people from a wider than average area and it does also say, doesn't it, that....."The fact that the variety of stores is rated more positively (and by quite a margin) than the convenience indicates that this is drawing shoppers strongly, which is a phenomenon not noted in many other Southwark high streets which seem to be visited "because it is there". Also worth noting that a far higher % of respondents noted ease of parking as one of the draws of Lordships Lane and this was noted in the report that it was more than twice the average of elsewhere. Which area of transport are you an expert in again @malumbu? I am no expert but that doesn't seem like an idea that is entirely credible. Unless, as @CPR Dave suggests you divert everything around to and along Barry Road. Which route do you think would work for buses and essential vehicles if the shopping part of LL was shut?

And the last council survey it undertook suggested that, if I remember correctly, 22% of all shoppers had driven to use Lordship Lane and the vast majority from postcodes not bordering SE22 and that the council considered it a destination shopping area. Let's also be very frank and pragmatic - in many of the areas people are saying need widening the pavement is very wide it's just that shop frontages and displays have encroached a long way out creating a narrowing effect and yes, sometimes you have to wait at weekends to let people pass but it's not the end of the world. As someone who can often be found sampling a tipple or two at Cave du Bruno or an ice-cream sat out Oddono's I am all for shop frontage creep! I think the removal of car parking spaces would be nothing more than a council CPZ creation programme and I would like to hope a more pragmatic approach is taken and we can see better lighting on Lordship Lane around the shops as it is very dark in places, there still needs to be some sort of crossing at EDG and LL and just better paving would help anyone - those would be my priorities and they would come way before removing parking spaces. BTW given Cllr McAsh has been one of the councillors responsible for Lordship Lane and given his free-spending on other projects in his cabinet role why has Lordship Lane been allowed to fall into such a neglectful state - it's a bit, well, shoddy and tired now?

Clearly, something should be done about Lordship Lane as it is starting to feel very tired and, despite lots of money spent elsewhere, hasn't really had much in the way of investment for a long time now. What this cannot become though is a trojan horse to implement a load of active travel measures by stealth...it doesn't, for example, need a pedestrian crossing every 50 yards......and already the "remove the car storage facilities on Lordship Lane" narrative is gathering pace. It'll be a brave councillor who stands in front of the Lordship Lane shopkeepers and pitches that one....they tried it once before and it did't end well....

Did anyone else notice how he is very careful not to mention them by name!?

So warranted insults are ok then? Honestly.... Which misinformation exactly? I wouldn't accuse you of being forum police but I do wonder if you are starting to stray into exactly the territory I am accusing others of occupying.

I am definitely not perfect but the things people accuse me of on here is ridiculous - if AI did a run of the accusations made against me by some other posters and summarised it, it would make scary reading - "lair", "outed someone", "childish", "embarrassing", "right-wing petrolhead Reform supporter", and so the list goes on. Good job I have a thick skin! Yes I did realise that! 😉