Rockets

The problem is Malumbu that with the increased number of wardens the pressure mounts on them to issue tickets and they may throw tickets around where discretion and a sense of seasonal goodwill may have prevented them from issuing them previously as they look to make sure they hit whatever quota they have. The way councils do this is incredibly underhand and snake-like way - the fact the council has spent £11.5m of tax-payers money to then raise more money from issuing fines to the very people they represent is ludicrous. But I did get in an Addison Lee recently where a driver said he had an airport pick-up in Greenwich and he pulled up outside the person's house and got a £100 fine for doing so as it was being monitored by CCTV. He showed me the letter and it confirmed he had stopped for 45 seconds but it costs him £100 - and this is someone who works very hard to earn £100. It's shameless really.

Yes they signed a £11.5m contract with APCOA on the basis of area-wide CPZs so now they have more wardens than parking zones to patrol so they are all hang around Lordship Lane hunting for victims!!!

Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at the Library tonight?

Ha ha...hilarious if true that Dale Foden said the 23 question government questionnaire would take too long to fill out....perhaps the government needs to send Southwark an FOI request to get the info......;-) https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1735209490436280806?t=kPRrvZtTB4da5RZIzAz5lw&s=19

Who are they pandering too with these proposals, they seem utterly pointless and a complete waste of money as do very little to change the junction. Is this some sort of legacy vanity plan for the Village councillors? The council has wasted so much money on this junction and on each occassion it has made things worse. Remember the first bit of meddling they did to "reduce emissions" and their own research showed it had the opposite effect and increased emissions. Its becoming an expensive joke - perhaps it needs a plaque paying respect to the huge amount of tax payers money buried with whatever changes they put in!

Walked down Court Lane today and certainly saw no signs of the parking pressure the council is oh so keen to try and convince themselves and us exists - huge swathes of empty parking spaces. In fact the only time i see any parking pressure is during the weekends and that is on a small section either side of the park as parents vie for a space that doesn't require their budding sporting star to walk too far after their match!

That is the council's perspective as they are calling out speeding cyclists as a problem that needs addressing with the new design of the junction.....so it seems a lot stronger than perspective....maybe you can accuse them of being anti-cyclist...or maybe just acknowledge there might be a problem ;-). That's because I live nearby and walk through there most days and dodge the speeding full kit wallies most weekends.........because I am, well, a local resident. The problem many of us local residents have is when people like to pass judgement or involve themselves and meddle in things from afar when they clearly know very little about what is going on and then challenge our observations as somehow wrong or warped to a certain narrative...;-)

I noticed that in the Dulwich Square consultation plans the council's proposals include: Separating pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; reducing cyclists' speed through traffic calming Clearly the council are acknowledging that there has been a problem with cyclists' speed through that pedestrian priority layout.

Did you do something to be taken off his Christmas Card list - had you perhaps responded to a consultation with a response the council did not approve of? 😉

But I dont think you need to be a resident to create a green dot. If this is based on the OHS map (or whatever it was called) anyone could place a dot with a request/comment on something to do with any road they chose. LCC used to encourage people to make comments in an attempt to sway council decisions whether they were a resident in the area or not. I bet you the council doesn't know/won't share where the people who posted the comments are from. It's a page from the active travel lobby playbook (that councils are more than aware of) of influencing local matters.

Is it just me or is anyone else struggling with what benefit there is of these changes - seems to be a lot of money being spent on doing very little indeed to the existing design? I wonder how much this exercise is costing (and how much has been spent thus far) and whether that money could be put to something more valuable to the local community like sorting out the Lordship Lane/East Dulwich Grove death-trap junction? Dulwich Square is becoming an expensive white elephant for the Southwark tax payer!

Do we know that these are requests from residents? If I remember rightly anyone can leave feedback on the interactive map they have used to collate some of that "evidence" - you don't have to be a resident of said street to leave feedback - would be interesting to know how many of them are from local residents as the way they position it in the document it doesn't suggest it is resident feedback: The green dots on the map below indicate where we have received requests for parking restrictions: Bottom-line is much of what the council are presenting as "evidence" is not something people in the area recognise as a problem and I very much hope that people mobilise against the council and say a firm no to the proposals and the council understands the weight of feeling against them - this has nothing to do with active travel or climate change and everything to do with revenue generation - a new tax for those that rely on cars.

There is also a lot of fox poo around and I sometimes think dogs take the rap for their 4-legged feral friends - sometimes a case of mistaken poo identity!!!!

And it looks like they have also got to the section between Townley and the rest of Lordship Lane as it was a lot clearer over the weekend.

The consultation is now live and it has a yes/no response to two questions: Do you agree with the proposed parking zone in your area? Do you want controlled parking on your street? Having a yes/no response is progress but, remember, the council has given itself an out by saying that even if there is an overwhelming negative response they can still force a CPZ on residents. And I think that is what they are gearing up for with the "evidence" section and I suspect they are using that to force their plans through. Look at the "parking stress research" they have done for the area - not something I recognise as, to me, there seems to be very little parking stress in the affected area yet the council's "research" which took place over two days (allegedly between 7am and 7pm on a Tuesday and Thursday) tells a very different story.

Latest One Dulwich update... Campaign Update | 10 Dec Dulwich Village Junction Update The Council has just issued a “consultation” on the re-design of the Dulwich Village junction (phase 3). Southwark has taken no notice of the views of local people. Public feedback on phase 2 asked for the junction re-design to prioritise access for key workers and those with disabilities and to consider the problem of displaced traffic. This hasn’t happened. The junction is still closed to all but emergency vehicles. There is still no access for the frail, the elderly and those with disabilities who depend on their cars for mobility. Traffic is still being displaced on to surrounding roads where families live and where children walk and cycle to school. This is not Streets for People. This is Streets for Some People. Please see our detailed comments. As this “consultation” ignores feedback from the local community, we suggest you fill in and return the survey but ignore question 6 and answer “1 (not at all)” to questions 7 – 12. And do please use the comment boxes to emphasise that the community rejected this 24/7 closure in the original consultation, and that the wider area will continue to suffer, not benefit, from it. The deadline is 17 January 2024. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

Malumbu the thread is not about licensing..... As someone who cycles a lot (sorry to disappoint you Earl!) I think any measures to encourage cyclists to conform to rules is a good thing. Granted, there are not many cyclists going over 20mph and policing it is impossible but there are too many who cycle who think the rules of the road don't apply to them (red lights, pavement cycling etc). Unfortunately, as we have seen in the car world, sometimes more draconian measures are required to get the message across to everyone about how people are supposed to behave. P.S. Earl I don't read the Daily Mail, again, sorry to disappoint you but your attempts to pigeon hole me as some right-wing looney are not even close, and again a well-worn name calling tactic used by many......but never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that! 😉 P.P.S Malumbu, Peter Walker "a serious journalist"...only if you like your active travel coverage bread buttered on one side! 😉

Feel free to involve them but don't base future policy and decisions on their input alone (or use them to tip the balance in your favour) when you can't convince adults that live in the affected area to support your ideas...which Southwark Labour is doing and has done.

Remember they said that the mandate for Southwark-wide CPZs was a document that was born out of "research" conducted with a large proportion of school children and students in the north of Southwark.....so this could well be part of a "consultation" thay will determine what measures we get forced upon us in future ...;-)

Earl, your argument was that bikes do not need to comply to speed limits because of their kinetic energy compared to cars which is an utter, utter nonsense and so flawed and blinkered it is laughable. Given your stoic refusal to answer the question why you think speed limits should not apply to bike we must presume that it is on the basis of "kinetic energy" and your assumption that being hit by a bike is better for you than being hit by a car. I am sure anyone hit by a bike takes real solace from that....

And as i explained this is wrong. It is a 20mph limit on restricted roads which are roads which have street lights no further apart than 200 yards which takes in a lot of rural areas. Your use of "built-up areas" is misleading. Because yours is not a reasoned response. Of course impact force is relevant but your defence of bikes not having to honour the speed limit on the basis of the kinetic energy of being hit by a bike rather than a car is ludicrous. We hear it time and time again from the cycle lobby that somehow being hit by a bike isn't an issue. Nonsense, absolute blinkered nonsense. Ah, I thought you meant conversion kits rather than conversion kits that are then retrofitted to go faster. Maybe be a bit clearer next time perhaps? Ha ha, that's a bit rich....;-)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...;-) Now where is that face palm emoji...;-) .

....After years of, disastrously, using the LCC to single-handedly mould active travel policy across the borough Southwark Council tried a different approach and turned to Year 5 and 6 pupils in the hope of developing something more balanced, pragmatic and fairer to all transport modes.....;-) Earl?

Again, I suggest doing some better research before posting. This is what is actually happening.The ability of local authorities to determine the speed of 30 mph roads in their purview has been taken away from them by the Senned. It has been replaced by a default 20mph for restricted roads (or roads that used to be 30mph) - the Welsh govermnent has referred to this a new default 20mph rules for 30 mph roads. A restricted road is defined as a road with street lamps no farther apart than every 200 yards, which takes in a huge number of urban and rural roads in Wales and this is why it is controversial so to say "built-up areas" is somewhat misleading. Apply the same measure in London and the home counties and how does that look....which takes me back to another question you "missed" which was do you agree the A205 should be 20mph? Again, more research needed on your part. Conversion kits are legal if they remain within the restrictions (of power output and top speed amongst other thingd). But of course some kits are not legal as they take you over the speed limit for such bikes (15.5 mph) and this, I am sure you will agree, is where enforcing 20mph limits for bikes would help police the issue. Agree?

Nope but by your reckoning we should all be happy to be hit by a bike and be thankful that its kinetic energy is not that of a car.... No I want them to follow the rules of the road becaise they are on the road...you know like red lights and stuff like that! You have yet to tell me why you think the rules should not apply to them (except for your kinetic energy nonsense). Again you are making things up. Where did I say that? Let me explain and spell it out for you as you seem to be struggling with clear messaging...what I said was that blanket area-wide 20mph limits are nonsense, that some roads are perfectly good as 30mph roads. The A205 is a very good example of this - do you think that should be 20mph? I asked you whether you agreed with the 20mph limit for all 30 mph roads in Wales...did you respond? Nope. Because I don't want to be hit by anything at 20mph. What's the kinetic energy of a horse travelling at 20 mph and where does it sit on your league table...;-) Could you also concede perhaps that there are problems with retro-fitted e-bikes that allow riders to travel at over 20mph in London (popular amongst some delivery drivers) and that apply the 20 mph limit to bikes would help combat that? Go on, try to agree with me on something....;-)