Rockets

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....;-)

Wow......just wow....basically the whole of Dulwich Village is going to become a CPZ area after all....I found this link on the bottom of the flyer announcing the Dulwich Villahe redesign consultation. I wonder if there will he a seperate flyer on the CPZ consultation as I sense the council are trying to bury this consultation? It will be interesting to see if a yes/no mechanism is added to the consultation when it opens next week. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/option2-dulwichvillage-stage2-cpz/ Time for the people to mobilise and go tell the council what we think of their plans...... December 2023 to January 2024 – Public Consultation. 15 December 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 5pm to 7pm 10 January 2023, Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 6pm to 8pm. In addition to the above, you can speak to someone from the council at Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane SE22 8NB, from 10am to 4pm on 11 January 2024. February 2024 to March 2024 – Decision making. May 2024 – Statutory consultation subject to prior decision making. June 2024 to September 2024 – Decision making. Late 2024 – Implementation subject to prior decision making.

The council are back, trying again with the Dulwich Village changes https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-phase-3-design/

To be fair Malumbu the thread is about 20 mph in Southwark so that is what is being discussed. Maybe have a word with Earl too as they were the one that took us on that kinetic magical detour....;-)

The same thing happened last year and Cllr McAsh had to intervene and get the cleaning teams out. Are there different cleaning teams for the parks vs the streets as I am forever seeing leaf clearing teams in Dulwich Park yet never a sign of them on Lordship Lane (where the need and risk is greater).

Wrong again Earl, that wasn't me. Someone else started that element and you were the first to wade in with your defence on why 20mph should not apply to cyclists so your role in creating this discussion point is far, far greater than mine. I just took umbrage with your ludicrous kinetic energy justification and tried to ascertain whether you thought speed limits for roads should apply to cyclists. By the way you still have not clearly articulated why you think cyclists should not have to observe speed limits. Penguin I think you have hit the nail on the head. Spot on.I The only time licensing comes in is when so many people have switched from cars to bikes that government need to find new ways to prop-up Road Fund tax. And as we have seen in other threads there is absolutely no chance of that for the foreseeable future.

I wonder if their row was because there are too many of them now for a small area and the CPZs are not delivering the council promised pot of gold! 😉

There is a speed limit it just doesn't apply to bikes. But you're still not answering why you think it shouldn't apply. I don't think that is a good comparison. I don't want to be hit by either but I am really not sure because at 10 mph with a car I actually fancy my chances to cushion the blow on the bonnet but a bike travelling at 20mph - there's an awful lot of pointy bits of metal that can do me a lot of harm at that speed and anything metallic hitting you at 20mph is going to do you harm and cause you to move. The death I highlighted earlier was a bike travelling at 18mph. I am sorry but the more i think about it your kinetic energy argument is utterly ridiculous and naively simplistic because all you need is for anything to hit you with enough kinetic energy to cause you to fall and that can cause harm. The impact might not kill you but hitting your head on the pavement might (especially if you are old or frail). I said it does not make sense to have 20mph everywhere (is that what you mean by default), in certain areas it makes perfect sense but in others less so. The whole point of speed limits is they are based on the road situation and condition. Do you agree with the Welsh government's 20mph default on all roads that used to be 30mph?

This might explain why there are so many parking wardens around Lordship Lane, I saw a flock of three of them heading off in different directions from outside The Palmerston. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/

But Earl, again, why do cyclists need to go faster than the speed limit? Why won't you answer that question? And your argument about kinetic energy is accurate but utterly non-sensical and an absolutely ludicrous position that displays a blinkered ignorance/arrogance/entitlement that people often see from the pro-cycle lobby (and a trait a lot of people really dislike) - a bike still carries kinetic energy and can still harm/kill you. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

Earl, still waiting to hear one good reason from you why cyclists shouldn't comply to road speeds? Seems perfectly reasonable to me and is hardly an infringement of their basic human rights. Earl, did you draw the short-straw to try and take the argument to us? Keep going it's really good fun and allows us to drag up a lot of historical and data-based facts to counter your arguments 😉

"Oversight" was the way the council categorised many of the "errors" that happened during this process. And remember the council only started monitoring streets inside the LTNs when the measures went in and had to be forced to monitor streets outside of them.....