Rockets

It's interesting as 72% of residents said they didn't want one and 60% of residents said they didn't want one if a neighbouring road had one - which is also quite telling. What the council are doing here is unforgivable and a lot of people are seeing through it for what it is. Maybe Cllr McCash is actually a very nice example of nominative determinism....

Yes and remember many years ago Cllr McAsh was out door-knocking with leaflets telling residents about the likely knock-on effects from the DV closures as part of his lobbying efforts. I am also reminded of when I overheard the councillors talking in a cafe in Dulwich when they talked about targeting "weak" Labour voters ahead of an election who they could "encourage" to support them. One wonders whether the council is relying on a base of Labour supporters to gerrymander their CPZs in...

The interesting thing about that article is Imperial College commenting on it because the source of the data supposedly comes from Breathe London which is a monitoring group set-up by.....wait for it......Imperial College.... And when you go onto the Breathe London site there is a map showing their monitoring locations and I can't find one anywhere near the area the increase is supposed to have been seen. Does anyone know how they came to this number?

The consultation was an area consultation and run as such. Surely the area has decided they do not want a CPZ? You know this makes a mockery of those who spout the council narrative that "a consultation is not a referendum". It very much seems that it is a referendum for individual streets should they say yes..... Those who defend the council for this devious approach are very much part of the problem. 72% of the people within the consultation area said no. Three steets managed to garner slime majorities of support yet 100% of the people within the streets will be impacted. Welcome to Southwark democracy.

@march46 only if you are prepared to parrot the council's weak spin to justify their approach. 72% said no...that is a fact. Another fact is that the council, once again, are shoe horning CPZs in against the will of the majority knowing full well that there will be increased parking pressure created by them. The council consults as an area but issues on a street by street basis...that's the very definition of dividing and conquering. More devious behaviour from our democratically elected officials making a mockery of the office they hold. I hope people remember this come May next year....

I see just 72% of residents opposed the measures....but it wasn't a referendum was it....good grief this council.

And really, does suggesting a pedestrian crossing over the cycle track qualify as relitigating a decision made years ago? Or is this a case of choosing a narrative to suit a specific agenda - an agenda I hasten to add that appears to give no credence to any voice other than supporting ones.

All, has anyone else noticed how buses turning left from Red Post Hill on to EDG cannot complete the turn without massively encroaching into the advanced cycle box? A cyclist in the box this morning got the shock of his life as a bus swung around the corner.

Are the parcel services organised by the local sorting office? We always notice parcels delivered by the vans are delivered on time but those that come via the postie can be unpredictable and we often get a "you were not in" when no-one even attempted delivery.

The impact of the Royal Mail issues are really becoming problematic everywhere. BBC News - 'We miss vital NHS appointments over post delays' https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdmq3ml3mo

Yes our son went on it and I did laugh that he went all the way to Waterloo to then head back down here again! It's the monthly Critical Mass ride, last Friday of every month and they meet at 7pm in Waterloo.

Yes @Penguin68 all under the guise of "social distancing". Talk about manipulative and untrustworthy behaviour.

You're right @Earl Aelfheah why the council was so obsessed with wasting so much tax-payers money on the square is hard to rationalise at a time when the council was pleading they have no money....;-)

No it is not and there is no alternative as it is not monitored. Have you ever wondered why it is hospital A&E departments are usually the first to flag serious concerns with new modes of transport - like e-scooters....why? Because STATS19 doesn't pick up on it they do as they see the victims rather than the police. Your "collision data" is like your "Majority support for Dulwich LTN based on 55% supporting the active travel strategy". Selectively plucked, designed to mislead and, fundamentally, wrong. But clearly you won't listen to any other perspective. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it cynical - we are all entitled to our opinion and, you may hate to hear this, it is an opinion shared by a lot of the local residents who spend a lot of time at the junction. There are two areas of that cycle lane that are clearly designated for crossing and they may need to become pedestrian crossings to help protect pedestrians from cyclists as many cyclists using that junction aren't doing it.

No it is your logic that is flawed...I have explained this to you before - remember it is recorded only if the police were present or someone alerted the police to it - I am not going over that again and I will let you try to work it out for yourself.... No. Wrong. Again. Go back to where I explained it to you how the STATS19 are collected. Because the high footfall crossing area in front of the shops feels like having to run sniper alley sometimes with bikes hurtling towards you often doing 15 - 20 mph. You may not feel it or you may just be blind to it but it's real and it is a problem and the council should really address it. Something needs to be done to slow bikes down at that junction - especially those hurtling down Calton - often with zero regard for the fact that it is also a pedestrian area and supposedly a shared space but a growing majority of cyclist show scant regard for this.

Of course they are because motorised vehicles no longer flow through there and your data is based, in the main, on motorised vehicle collisions. This is a bit like the council monitoring, and then heralding, a drop in traffic along closed streets.......it's kind of a "you don't say" moment. I bet if there was data collected on every collision involving cycles then that would have increased as much as collisions involving motorised vehicles has decreased - maybe more so. But that data is not collected which is why your argument is so fundamentally biased - because the dataset you are referring to is incomplete. It's funny isn't it - the active travel lobby come on here and laud the new crossings around Melbourne Grove and defend them yet when someone suggests something to help pedestrians deal with cyclists they're vociferous in opposition. Why is this? There is an increasing weight of evidence that pedestrians needs more protection from cyclists yet the active travel lobby won't ever entertain it.

@Earl Aelfheah I explained this to you this months ago so no need to go over it again but to what you refer is police reported collision data which does not (by the very mechanism it employs) record all collisions (it is skewed to vehicular accidents) - all of the sites to which you refer and get your data use only those incidents to which the police either attend or someone reports it to them. When we look at what's happening near Melbourne Grove this is clearly not a valid reason not to add more - there is clearly a natural crossing point in the area where it looks like there was going to be a crossing. I really can't work out why you are so against it - can someone explain the rational?

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But for those not part of the active travel lobby and more balanced in their assessment it can feel unsafe for pedestrians with cyclists either approaching at break neck speed (usually Lime bikes) down the hill from Calton into the Square or cutting various corners by bombing across the paved areas. You're right, it is a pleasant calm space until cyclists appear - then it becomes a bit wild west and as a pedestrian you have to keep your wits about you - as crossing the cycle track really feels like a bit of a gamble. So many times I have witnessed the classic rumble of a cargo bike or Lime bike approaching and the ring ring of the bell alerting people to get out of their way. A pedestrian crossing would, hopefully, slow some of the bikes down (although that video I posted clearly shows they may have negligible impact) and given how keen the council is to put them in elsewhere it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest it should be considered. It actually looks as if it may have been considered as the paved area is different at an ideal crossing point. Is the objection from the cycle lobby that it would slow cyclists down?

@march46 of course we do. It just so happens that the biggest menace to pedestrian in Dulwich Square is cyclists - do you not agree? Would you support calls for a pedestrian crossing over the cycle track - one suspects you would not? It's almost as if the existing road layout was designed to accommodate one but it was never put in. I am not sure why anyone would object to one - seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to better protect pedestrians.

To be honest the lobby group was said in jest - council investment in replacing a well used and loved bridge in a park should not have to rely on lobby groups. Surely someone in the council would have enough grey matter to say...hey, given we have a £17m surplus from all the fines, parking permits etc we have issued let's maybe spend some of it on repairing the bridge in the park. Or are they not interested as it is not something to keep the cycle lobby happy? Also, is the park not Margy and Richard territory as it falls in their manor? I bet if people contact them they do something about it as we are less than 12 months away from an election.....

Someone needs to start a wooden bridge lobby group, cosy up to the local councillors and get the Mayor's office to pay some activist researchers to write a report on how good a wooden bridge is compared to a metal bridge thus justifying the investment in said wooden bridge.......;-)

I think you hit the nail on the head - if the council can spend a huge amount of money on numerous redesigns of Dulwich Square we have to ask the question why some of that money could not be spent on replacing the footbridge. It seems that the council is happy to throw tax payers money at some projects and not others.

@malumbu oh dear.....the TFL review into their floating bus stop concept clearly isn't aligned to the real world....did you actually watch the video? I doubt it. I am still laughing you are actually trying to defend the actions of the cyclists in that video...denial is not a river in Africa! Anyway before you try to divert this thread it's probably a waste of time putting a pedestrian crossing in the cycle lane in Dulwich Square as clearly very few cyclists pay any attention to them....

Sue, I was correct - Projects in Parks comes from the same pot as CPZ and LTN revenue - the council spent 244,000 on Parks last year from a surplus of £17m....perhaps they could find the money to replace the bridge by using some of that surplus as they spent £2m on LTNs alone......

If the Qatari's decide to retaliate then it's all going off...but I suspect the Iranians are hoping for this - one inaccurate missile and the Qatari's may have to. I think the Iranian leadership is working on fast-tracking their own demise and the Americans and Israeli's planning for regime change, maybe with the many political prisoners the Israelis tried to free from the Elvin prison today. What a mess but clearly Iran was becoming a big threat to not only Israel but many of the other Gulf States and was clearly doing scary stuff with nuclear weapons that required action.