Earl Aelfheah

I'm not missing the point, I don't agree that people must wear special clothes when walking or cycling. There is no law on this and despite the highway code suggesting clothing that cyclists and pedestrians might consider wearing after dark, I doubt you wear a reflective sash when walking in the evening. It's also a fact that a bicycle and a moped are different things. It's not unreasonable to point out where someone conflates the two. What is 'disagreeable', is Penguin68 suggesting that we should have no sympathy for someone hit by a careless driver, if they weren't wearing particular clothes that he deems appropriate. People should obviously have lights on their bikes when travelling after dark.

There is no law about what people must wear when cycling. The highway code also suggests that pedestrians might want to wear bright clothes in order to make themselves more visible, but I don't think many people actually follow that advice. I think people should wear what ever they feel comfortable in. You shouldn't have to wear 'special clothes' in order to use a bicycle, or to take a walk. There are laws about lights. I agree that people should have lights on at night. There are invisible cyclists? 🤣 You have no sympathy for someone travelling perfectly legally by bicycle, with good lights and reflectors, and who is hit by a driver paying insufficient attention, if they're not wearing bright clothing? And does the same view extend to pedestrians? From the highway code:

I am aware. You didn’t read my post properly: I was pointing out that people can wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. And that a moped isn’t a bicycle.

People should have lights on - hard to disagree with that. It’s up to them what they wear though. People aren’t encouraged to paint their car bright yellow when it gets dark. There is no law that saws you have to dress brightly when walking or cycling, or driving a car. A moped isn’t a bicycle.

@first mate you regularly address questions for the council to me. I know you're convinced that I work for them in some way (along with anyone who doesn't automatically oppose all change), but I don't. I have no interest in creating more parking on the Lane - you can tell this because I've never called for it, and have agued for removing some parking.

My experience of school streets is that they're usually pretty obvious - often people put temporary plastic barriers up, and there are lot's of parents and children hanging around / standing in the road. In most cases, the signage is also pretty clear (if it isn't in a specific instance, then you should take it up with the council). Those driving through are quite often just choosing to ignore it, or are completely inattentive (which I have little sympathy for if you're driving past a school during drop off / pick up). I live opposite a primary school and before the school street restrictions, there was at least one collision involving a child, and several near misses.

The thread is literally about improving walkability and the opening post suggests widening pavements by removing some parking. The suggestion that discussing the topic is hijacking the thread is very odd indeed. Rockets dubious claim that 22% of shoppers on Lordship Lane drive there, is based on a typically biased (mis)interpretation of a 10 year old survey, so not unreasonable to provide the relevant context for those who haven’t read it themselves. Nothing anti car going on here btw. You could improve traffic flow on the lane considerably by removing half a dozen parking spaces, and making the bus lane 24/7. But the thread is about how to improve the shopping environment for pedestrians, along what is primarily a local shopping street.

22% said they had driven to the area. 90% said they were in the area because they lived or worked here. So the conclusion that 22% we’re driving ‘to the shops’ is highly dubious. A liberal estimate might be 10% (those shopping on the lane who didn’t live or work locally), but it’s highly likely some of those would have arrived by bus or other means. 5% talked about ease of parking being something that attracted them, so probably that’s more suggestive of the numbers who used to drive for the shops a decade ago. I suspect it may have been, and certainly is now, less than 5%. I also think repurposing half a dozen car spaces to create more room for pedestrians would encourage more shoppers than it would discourage, especially if it also made it easier to arrive by bus. No evidence of this. In terms of a thriving lane, I would say pavements which people can navigate and remain passable, and faster buses, are more important than half a dozen parked cars (that rarely move).

This is a non-sequitur. It just suggests that more people visit the shops on the Saturday. It tells you nothing about how many people drive to Lordship Lane specifically for the shops. As I previously pointed out, the responses suggest that 90% of those who reported using the shops (a decade ago), considered themselves 'local', being in the area either because they live or work here. Yes, because they work in the area. The fact that the shops are rated positively doesn't tell you anything, except that people rate the shops positively. Yes, 5%. That's quite different from the 22% you were quoting. Probably 5% is a slightly more accurate percentage of those driving to LL and shopping 10 years ago. I don't doubt that some people drive to LL (and probably more 10 years ago than now), but your suggestion that it was 22% of shoppers is extremely dubious.

This is missing some important context. Firstly the survey is a decade old. Secondly, 56% of people surveyed described themselves as living locally, and 90% as 'local' by virtue of where they lived or worked. So it seems likely the 22% you describe drive to SE22 for work and then use the local shops when they're in the area. Very few, if any, are specifically driving to, and parking on, Lordship Lane for the shops. In the survey LL was very much described as a local shopping area, not a destination shopping area.

I don't. I thought the OP suggested removing some parking to widen pavements? Perhaps you could just explain what you are proposing, instead of assuming I know what it is?

What's the more 'pragmatic' approach to widening pavements? I assume it's just not widening pavements.

Really sorry to hear this. I hope he's OK and not too shaken.

They’re convenient. They’re fun to ride. From ED, getting a Lime to Brixton and then jumping on the tube is probably the fastest way to get into central London. There’s a reason they’re popular.

I agree - I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that pavements should be widened everywhere, but along specific sections of the road. I don't understand this point. If you're talking about the stretch by Oddonos etc. - if you remove some of the car spaces and widen the pavement it makes it easier for buses to pass each other, give more room to pedestrians, and should have no impact at all on the bus stop opposite. A 24/7 bus lane would also help buses pass each other and smooth traffic flow generally.

I suspect that improving the bus flow along the lane would do a lot more for the shops than providing half a dozen spaces for car parking and storage (and creating squeezed and crowded pavements to accommodate them). The pavement outside Bruno's, Oddono's etc. get's incredibly busy / difficult to navigate at weekends. It was widened during COVID and I have no idea why it wasn't made permanent. Also agree with first mate on maintenance. A lot of broken, uneven paving.

Every politician says they’ll find loads of money cutting frivolous spending. Reform had their own ‘DOGE’ team at Kent council who were going to go in and save huge amounts’ of money. They disbanded very quickly having realised that the mountains of waste didn’t actually exist.

We do need growth and investment. But cutting spending, is the opposite of investment - degrading transport, increasing waiting lists, etc. The analogy of government spending as a household budget is a very poor one. Government financial management is probably poor, but every single prospective government says they'll find billions in efficiencies and then fail to find them. I don't believe there is as much waste as people think. We need to tax unproductive assets, raising money to invest in public services / paying down debt, (or else encouraging people to move their money in to productive investments).

I think one could argue that degrading public services / infrastructure is what's led to our current, slow economic decline. We've spent 14 years trying austerity, and it's proven counter productive to growth and productivity. A successful economy and society needs good transport, education and early intervention health care. On taxes, it depends how you target them. Tax funded spending may be a positive fiscal multiplier. Taxes on work aren't great, or when they hit the poorest (who tend to spend most of what they earn, boosting economic activity). We need a well designed wealth tax (on idle assets), and stronger measures to target avoidance.

Yes, they should clearly have been more honest on taxes before the election and not backed themselves into a corner. After 14 years of mismanagement and decline, they have to invest and at the same time start to bring borrowing down (otherwise they continues to be at the mercy of the bond markets). Continued cuts / degrading of public services is counter productive (a successful economy and society needs good infrastructure, education and health care). The single biggest thing they could do to immediately improve growth would be to rejoin the single market, but I appreciate that is difficult politically. So if you can't significantly boost growth short term, can't cut too much further, and need to raise money without borrowing, that only really leaves taxation. Of course, where best to target those taxes - that's the real question.

It's yet another example of his ongoing attacks on the free press.

The editing was clumsy and made it look like he said something specific, that he did not. That is obviously wrong, and the BBC have apologised and people have lost their jobs as a result. That said, the overall impression - that Trump repeatedly stated (and still does) that the election had been stolen, that he encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol, that he repeatedly called for people to fight - in short that he inspired a violent insurrection - is entirely true. Trump used the word 'fight' 20 times. Whilst his speech was going on, his supporters chanted "Take the Capitol", "Invade the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol" and "Fight for Trump" The documentary generally, was not misleading. The real scandal is that Trump wasn't tried and ended up back in power. I do think that we need to stop normalising Trump. He has a criminal history and is openly corrupt. He has shown himself to be a threat to democracy. The US right and their tech billionaire allies are having an malign impact on UK politics and culture, interfering both directly and indirectly, in ways that we should be doing more to challenge.

Totally agree with this. The pavement widening that was put in place during COVID, should have been made permanent imo. I would also make the bus lane 24/7. At the moment, it's nearly always got cars parked in it. Widening the pavement and removing some of the parking opposite the bus stop would also improve traffic flow.

Sounds like a sensible proposal

Really interesting discussion here. It's difficult to respect the views of people who support Farage, Trump, Musk etc. Why should we, when their views are deplorable. But then that exact 'deplorable' label, as we know, is counterproductive and drives people to double down / switch off to more progressive views. How do you actually help change minds? We're currently spiralling into dark places culturally and politically imo. The amount of open racism, even amongst front line politicians here and in the US is astounding to me. Feels like we're going backwards. The influence of social media and the tech billionaires / bros, is a powerful and largely malignant one. There was an enlightening (and frightening) bit of journalism by Sky this week about Musk's influence on British politics. He has a strange obsession with the UK and London in particular (as do many on the US right wing): https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-effect-how-elon-musk-is-boosting-the-british-right-13464487