Earl Aelfheah

I'm not really taking a position on this proposal, just pointing out what may have lead to it. I can see the rationale. I guess we'll find out what impact it actually has when the trial starts.

What does this mean then: Not according to the signage. If you know your Highway Code you know what that sign means. Because I take it to mean the signs prohibit permit holders, contractors or park staff from driving in the park. And you seemed to imply that means the speed limit doesn't apply to them. Perhaps you could clarify.

Oh Ok, it's just the usual. A filter on Calton Avenue is not having an impact on Ryedale. Waze absolutely has done. It always tries to direct me down that road, which I ignore. No, it directs you down there to avoid the lights and possibly save 30 seconds. But it leads to more cars having to slow down on Forest Hill road as cars stop to manoeuvre in and out of Rye dale. Waze only looks to optimise the individual journey not to improve flow across the wider system.

Are you talking about Calton Avenue? How's that having an impact on Ryedale? Waze does direct people down Ryedale - that's exactly how it works. It's very slightly quicker to cut out the lights. But it slows down cars on Forest Hill Road. Waze it trying to optimise an individuals journey, but that doesn't mean it's optimising at a macro level. It's absolutely not.

Most traffic used to go down Dunstans Road, turning at the lights on to Forest Hill Road. Now Waze etc, diverts a lot of traffic down Rye Dale in order to avoid the lights. I imagine that residents have seen a big increase in traffic over the last few years. The lights allow you to manage flow; A significant increase in the number of vehicles using Rye dale to cut them out, will disrupt that flow and slow traffic on Forest Hill Road. I suspect this is why they're proposing this trial. Worth pushing the council to do proper baselining and monitor the impact properly.

If you're looking for a reasonably priced gym, there are a couple of PureGyms not too far away in Camberwell and Peckham. They're less than £20 a month with no joining fee. If you're looking to get fitter and / or lose weight, and you don't have any mobility issues, then download the coach to 5k app and start running. It's by far the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to improve your cardiovascular fitness and it's great for clearing your head!

Not according to the signage. If you know your Highway Code you know what that sign means. You're seriously claiming that there are no vehicles that drive in the park? No permit holders, contractor or park staff? And so there is no speed limit applicable to motor cars?

If the government said all departments and Labour MPs must stop using the platform - and perhaps suggested moving over to an alternative such as Bluesky and called on the BBC and other media organisations to do the same, they could. I think they should.

This is fair - I posted before property reading it so apologise for the truncation. But even with the full quote above, what Rocks has said is still not true. Permit holders are allowed to drive in the park, as are contractors and park staff - not just pedestrians, dogs and cyclists. There are rising arm barriers and notice to car users just in front of the one that Rocks has shared a picture of. You said that there were inherent issues with Southwark encouraging cyclists to use the park what are they? The fact that cyclist must give way to pedestrians in the park? Cyclist must always give way to pedestrians, whether in a park or on a road, so that is irrelevant. I have no problem at all with Southwark encouraging people to use their bicycles in a park and it appears you do, for reasons I simply do not understand.

Even if they’re not going to regulate, they could at least stop actively supporting it. Why are our MPs using a platform that is filled with hate speech, harassment and which enables the generation of sexual images of children? It’s unacceptable imo.

This isn't true. Permit holders are allowed to drive in the park, as are contractors and park staff. There is a notice just in front of the one you have posted a photo of by the rising arm barriers.

It is not. This is absolute nonsense.

Here is the sign (just in front of the one that Rocks has posted). I've screen grabbed it off Streetview so it's blurred out some of the instructions, but makes it clear that cars should abide by a 5 mph speed limit.

It's absolutely insane. You have people who seem to want park users not to exceed a brisk walking pace, unless they're in a motor vehicle, who object to Southwark encouraging people to use their bicycles in the park, and who object to a 20 mph speed limit on a road just outside the gates - on which there have been numerous serious injuries and deaths.

Yes, I said I: Ringing a bell is not a sign that you want someone to 'get out of the way', but should be used as a polite way to let someone know you're approaching / passing (the highway code actually recommends this). Have you often had cyclists who have cycled straight at you, or into you, rather than going around you? I just don't recognise this picture of cyclists expecting people to give way to them in the park, and I'm there most days. This is just wrong. Motor vehicles with permits are allowed in the park. There is a 5 mph speed limit for them.

There's a gym at JAGS, Dulwich College and Dulwich Hamlet. There is 'fit for' gym on Lordship Lane and the Leisure centre on Crystal Palace road, and a number of gyms in Peckham and Camberwell.

I have no problem at all with Southwark encouraging people to use their bicycles in a park. I'm amazed you do. It does feel like there are a handful of people who regularly post in this section, who don't want bicycles on our roads, or in our parks, or really anywhere else.

This is not my experience (bikes have always gone round me), but I do agree that there are too many who go too fast. I don't know what it means to build 'greenway cycle routes' - can you expand on that? Does it mean having segregated / dedicated cycle lanes in the park?

👆 as I already said. No one has argued that there is no 5 mph limit, or that there aren’t 5 mph signs; just that the byelaws refer only to motor vehicles and so the limit is only enforceable in relation to motor vehicles. Your interpretation of the two signs (that the second one applies only in the context of the first), is both wrong and also irrelevant to the point about what is and isn’t legally enforceable. Presumably applying your logic, the 5mph limit also applies to dogs and to people on foot. Is that correct? Makes Parkrun interesting 🤣 (for context a brisk walking pace is generally 3 to 4.5 mph) As the shared path sign doesn’t show motor vehicles, are you also suggesting the speed limit sign does not therefore apply to cars in the park? 🤔

You can take it as you like. Read my previous post. What’s the byelaw that makes a 5mph limit for people on bicycles (or for dogs, or for people on foot for that matter) legally enforceable? Councils can’t make law via a sign. And if you read that sign in the way you suggest, there are going to be a lot of dogs getting nicked 🤣

Elon Musk's 'X', rapidly spreads misinformation, hate speech, harassment and enables the creation and distribution of deepfakes. It is in my opinion, having a malign influence on society. Recently it has been reported that 'Grok' (it's AI function) allows people to create sexualised images of children. It is disgraceful that the UK government isn't taking any action to regulate the platform, in the absence of their putting reasonable controls in place themselves. At the very, very least, the UK government and our MPs should not be actively supporting 'X' by using it themselves. If you agree, I would encourage you to write to Ellie Reeves demanding some action (she posts regularly on the platform). Her email address is [email protected]

Yep, take care out there, its slipperyyyyyyyy......

I don't think there is any disagreement on what the signs say. Rocks 'killer point' was just that the sign says there is a 5 mph speed limit. It's not the revelation he thinks. 🤣 This is a fair point. It's possible I am easily distracted from what I should be doing on occasion 😉.

And your 'big reveal' is that the sign says that the speed limit is 5 mph? 🤣. Without a bye-law or other specific statutory regulation applying to the parkland, any speed-limit sign in a park is not legally enforceable. It might act as a guidance or policy notice but not a legal obligation enforceable in court. And as speed limits do not generally apply to bicycles, scooters or 'hover boards' (not sure what that means), they would have to be specifically referenced. What's the byelaw that give legal effect to a speed limit on bicycles in the park? I have no problem in principle with a speed limit in a park, as I've already said. I do think 5 mph for a bicycle is far too low though. Even children will generally cycle faster than that, as at less than 5 mph an inexperienced cyclist will actually be unstable. Effectively you may as well call for a ban on people riding their bike, which I think would be a really sad move. It would also be strange to apply the same 5 mph limit placed on people taking vans and cars through the park, to people on their bicycles - it demonstrates a complete lack of any sort of proportionality, or risk based assessment. It's irrational (or perhaps 'ideological' is more accurate). It's very strange that you would argue otherwise, whilst also describing a 20 mph speed limit on a road that sees significant numbers of serious accidents as 'ridiculous'.

And? Does it mention bicycles specifically? Because again, without a byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles, it is not legally enforceable. You've said that you think the 20 mph limit on the A205 is 'ridiculous'. Presumably you consider it disproportionate, or inappropriate in some way, relative to the number of serious collisions that take place on that road? Why do you think that it's proportionate for the 5 mph speed limit in the park to be extended to bicycles? Do you think they pose the same risk to other park users as a car, or that it's a particularly dangerous environment, unlike the A205? No, you repeatedly asked me to 'describe the sign', with no explanation as to why. That is weird. If you have a point to make, do so, rather than playing silly games. As it happens you didn't have a point, which is doubly strange imo, but fair enough, I'm sure there was a killer point in there somewhere 🤔.