Rockets

It certainly used to be great but now has become prohibitively expensive for many and this has led to many people having to move out and the folks moving in are more monied than their predecessors and have wants for different things. I do feel the community buzz is gradually eroding and it's all starting to go a bit Islington...fine if that's your thing but not the area I fell in love with over the years.

March46 - nice try but no cigar. Far more likely is that the photo used is a Southwark News file photo from when they sent a reporter down to a lot of the protests some years ago. I very much doubt Richard Aldwinkle had anything to do with the selection of the image to illustrate the Southwark News article......

Sorry, can you point out where I condone the behaviour? You might struggle because I don't and I wouldn't. You're trying to deflect and distract by making things up - again! And what point are you (struggling) to make about a parent who can afford to send their children to that school....you get idiots across the whole spectrum of people. Or are you suggesting such behaviour is only expected of less wealthy people - because that is a prejudiced trope path you probably don't want to venture too far down?

Yup so let's expel the kids...that'll learn them! Head: "You may be an exemplary student but I am afraid you are being expelled" Student: "Why?" Head: "Because your parent parks badly and is an angry idiot and Dulwich Roads thinks it's a good idea and they used two exclamation marks in their tweet because they are so angry about it".

Dulwich Roads' posts are becoming more and more extreme and irrational. Their call for pupils to be expelled from schools if their parents park badly is extreme, slighlty bizarre and a weird type of justice. Such a great idea ruining a child's education and future prospects because their parents parked badly.....but this probably speaks volumes about the person posting this nonsense.

Glad you agree. Common sense has prevailed...just a shame Dulwich Roads seems to be lacking in the commonsense department.

Nonsense. They corrected the location. Nothing in that post does anything to address the rumour they created that someone died. Any rational person would have removed the first post alluding to someone being killed. But they didn't, why? They chose to leave it up.

What this "correction"....which is correcting the location....? The only person being misleading is whomever is behind the Dulwich Roads account.... Their first post is clearly designed to imply someone died which then forced the police to issue a statement that there were no fatalities - probably because of the understandable concern from parents with pupils at the school. Utterly, utterly irresponsible and quite sickening from Dulwich Roads. But they have previous as they never bother to find out the facts - just excitedly post anything and everything to try to make their point.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/council-investment-in-ltns-and-cyle-lanes-has-failed-as-fewer-people-walking-and-cycling-data-suggests/ It will be interesting to look at the underlying data supporting this.

Dulwich Roads have been up to it again, posting (deliberately?) misleading post to suit their agenda which actually led police to announce there was no fatality. "A Met Police spokesperson: “One male has gone to hospital for treatment; we await confirmation on his condition but no fatalities." Whomever is behind this account really needs to engage brain before posting, this is outside a school and would terrify any parent that may have seen this. They circulated incorrect and erroneous facts and did nothing to correct it - disgusting. It's almost as if they are wishing for a far more tragic outcome to suit their narrative.

Err nope...you're the only one confused....perhaps deliberately so... What is consultation? Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set Ha ha, the only deranged ones are the ones who think the way Southwark behaves is anything other than wholly unacceptable. Deranged, blinkered and easily led! 😉 A politician's dream.

A consultation is only not a referendum when the result goes against the people running the consultation and they need an excuse for doing what they wat rather than what the respondents to the consultation wan! Plenty of occasions where the council has lauded the results of a consultation when the result goes the way they want it to!! Southwark did not mention LTNs or CPZs in ANY of their local election materials so by that measure do not have a mandate to roll them out. They were very, ahem, selective.... They are bending the rules and creating an uneven playing field to suit their agenda - I know it, you know it, everyone knows it - if it was something you didn't want you'd be up in arms as well as this is not democracy in action.

Has anyone asked who runs it yet....;-)

Favourite them on Rightmove and watch as, over the months, they get gradually reduced, switch agents (normally from a big name to some "boutique realtor" no-one has ever heard of) and then, if they do ever sell console yourselves that a fool and their money are easily parted, start moaning about the good old days of house prices and pondering why it is starting to feel like Islington whilst you enjoy an over-priced orange juice in Joe the Juice after buying something in Sweaty Betty....;-)

Unfortunately this is not the way council's work. They only ever present data that supports their agenda to get what they want. Representing the views of the community is a hollow soundbite and actually, in many areas, not part of their agenda from the outset. Ha ha...there we go again....everyone knows the "not a referendum" argument is just a weak smokescreen to try and spin away from the fact that residents have rejected their proposals - it's the pre-cursor for ignoring residents. And it is not a minority - it was the majority of people who responded to the mechanism the council initiated to gauge, and then listen to (which they are obliged to do), the thoughts of those most directly impacted by the plans they are proposing. How many times have we seen it where the council mailshots residents they, in the majority, respond saying "no thanks" and the council and their supporters then say "yeah, but, yeah, but, no...that's not a referendum". It's called moving the goalposts. And as the Local Government Association https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/communications-and-community-engagement/resident-communications/understanding-views-2 describes consultations as this - something a long way from anything these councils have been doing: What is consultation? Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

Dismissing results of a consultation on the basis of a "small subset of the actual number of residents" is a path walked by those who don't agree with the outcome. A bit like the "a consultation is not a referendum" claptrap - only ever used when the result you want isn't delivered and you need something to justify why you are ignoring the views of residents.

Given the delegation of powers from the Mayor's office to TFL over e-scooters I am very surprised no-one thought that e-bikes might need some sort of co-ordination/guidance. It is ludicrous that neighbouring councils could have different suppliers and different approaches to e-bike rollout - I know it is one of the things that the operators have complained about that a bike can be geo-fenced to a council boundary and cannot cross it. The lack of joined-up thinking is astounding and has been a big contributor to the mess there is.

I don't think anyone is asking for them to be banned - it's pretty clear that the thread is about the problems they are causing for other pavement and road users and how councils and the companies rolling them out need to get on top of this because it is clearly a big problem and I suspect the banning of e-scooters in some places is being used a trojan horse to say to the companies "get your house in order". Longer term I do think there needs to be pragmatic analysis on whether they are having a positive impact on active travel or merely replacing journeys that used to be walked - a la my unscientific child use-case example! Yes but would it not have been good for someone to try and co-ordinate at the London level for e-bikes? Seems to me from the London Councils website that everyone was left to their own devices and that is one of the reasons we have got ourselves into the mess we are in because each council did their own thing and they now want to co-ordinate which feels like bolting the door.....the challenges with e-bikes are global and not unique to any one city so why no-one thought this might happen is anyone's guess. The rental market for e-bikes is unregulated at the national level but some boroughs have agreements in place with one or more operator(s). Following a discussion at London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee, TfL, London Councils and London boroughs will now be exploring the design of one coordinated future scheme to manage dockless e-bikes and e-scooters in London, through a contract, to improve parking, while increasing the quality and sustainability of services in London.

So what powers did the Mayor delegate to TFL for the running of the e-scooter programme then? By default does that not suggest that the power lay with the Mayor's office in the first instance and that TFL were then handed the decision-making authority? Is it completely different for e-bikes - The London Councils' website lumps e-bikes and e-scooters together but is very little publically available on the mechanisms behind e-bikes, does anyone know where it is located? Here is what the website says: https://archive.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/transport/rental-escooters-and-ebikes Rental e-bikes The rental market for e-bikes is unregulated at the national level but some boroughs have agreements in place with one or more operator(s). Following a discussion at London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee, TfL, London Councils and London boroughs will now be exploring the design of one coordinated future scheme to manage dockless e-bikes and e-scooters in London, through a contract, to improve parking, while increasing the quality and sustainability of services in London.

Up 91% in a year in peak commuting hours rather than 100% year on year growth - that's a key difference. https://www.ft.com/content/730d4dab-e80a-4e14-a343-abafd868c5f0 The article also says the people are increasingly using them for first and last mile journeys (which probably explains the 91% growth) - to and from tube and railway stations etc - which is great as long as they are not replacing walking. If my kids usage is anything to go by then laziness tends to be the over-riding factor as they jump on them when we come back to our local stations for journeys they used to walk and only took a few minutes. The article is well worth a read as it goes some way to explain why the carpet bombing of bikes by various companies is creating the challenge - the VC funded gold-rush is blinding everyone to the impact they are having on streets and residents. I very much sense, given the £ involved, it will get worse before it gets better as operators and councils are distracted by the revenue generating opportunities. No. Are you sure? https://www.london.gov.uk/md3227-delegation-mayoral-powers-continuation-e-scooter-rental-trial

And another one - the Eton's of this world won't be impacted it will be the smaller schools that take the hit like this one - the smaller schools whose fees are much lower (£3,400 vs Eton's £16,000) and whose parents don't have the financial means to stretch further and whose margins are much smaller. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxl77njlq8o

😉 But wasn't it TFL who are managing the London programmes after the Mayor delegated his authority to them - he certainly did that for e-scooter trials? And on that someone asked who is making money from this - the borough's are (if the same type of model is being used for e-bikes as e-scooters). I found this (it seems very difficult to find anything on e-bike trail costs but the London Councils website seems to lump e-bike and e-scooter trials together) 5.2. In addition to covering their costs of delivery, each operator will be required to pay charges in respect of every e-scooter and full-service or ride-through borough. As set out in Appendix B, charges paid per operator will vary every period and depend on the number of ride-through and full-service boroughs participating, as well as the number of e-scooters in their fleet. Distribution of these payments from operators to the boroughs would be determined by fleet size plus the proportion of trips that end in each borough. The administration agreement sets out the charges payable by the operators which include: 1. A one-off upfront charge per participating borough of: o £5,000 per full-service borough o £2,500 per ride-through borough 2. Ongoing per-vehicle per-period operator payments for each of the 13 4-week periods covering the duration of the trial. This shall be calculated using the average number of escooters made available to rent throughout the preceding review period across the trial area, multiplied by a tiered per vehicle charge dependent on the number of e-scooters made available to rent by the operator as set out below: Average number of vehicles made available over the review period Charge per vehicle to that tier 0 – 2200 £5.50 per vehicle 2201 – 4400 £6.50 per vehicle 4401 + £7.50 per vehicle

Here you go. LSBU High Street Report - Lordship Lane High Street (2).pdf

I think this is the problem - councils are controlling the rollout of these "trials" and there is clearly money/revenue being generated by someone and councils have been happy to allow the problem to get to this point - they're all chasing the potential revenue stream. Whomever decided to not have any co-ordinated, centralised approach to this and let councils do what they want really needs to question their decision-making process. We now have a closing the stable door after the horse has bolted situation which is going to be very challenging to resolve. Now councils want to force e-bike companies to pen their bikes because constituents hate the mess but this is not the business model the e-bike companies need to get an ROI (and there is a huge amount of investment money going in to try and win exclusivity and I think Lime have suggested that they need exclusivity). The vast majority of journeys on these bikes are first or last mile journeys so the model is based on find a bike on your road and use them to get to your railway or tube station instead of walking or getting the bus. If councils insist on penning them then people may not bother to use them so now the argument is raging as councils said "tidy up your mess" and e-bike companies said "well we need stations everywhere" - (I think I read their addressable market sweetspot they need to get to is a bike within a one minute walk of everyone) and councils have said "that may not be possible".

Careful DKHB - you're the one who started the illegal plates discussion that then turned into (somehow only Snowy knows how) to the not taxed monster truck. I found that report from Southwark on Lordship Lane shoppers. It's from 2015 and showed that 22% of those surveyed had driven to Lordship Lane (37% had walked and 31% got the bus and those were the two highest) 29% came from SE22 17% SE15 11% SE12 5% SE5 And then the rest from boroughs much further afield (that the report author commented on because it was surprising that it had such a pull) Not to mention the problems with flooding which clearly don't warrant any $ from Southwark because it's not Dulwich Village....