first mate

Are the coaches in some way licensed by the council and paying to park there? What on earth was he on about?

I just thought it would be useful to remind everyone how this thread started. The OP made a very valid point. But instead of looking at why maybe more cyclists are taking risks by not having lights and in addition choosing not to increase their visibility with hi-viz, some posters separated out the points in the statement, dismissing the no lights issue ('illegal so no discussion necessary') and instead highlighted and focused solely on the hi-viz clothing aspect, some also choosing to mock to undermine, thereby deflecting from the original statement which made sense to many of us; as one poster put it- just common sense.

@Earl Aelfheah who said about Rockets "He has no interest in improving the experience of people walking or cycling". That is a singularly arrogant statement. Are you a mind reader now?

But this is an inaccurate statement. Anyone really familiar with Amsterdam and who has seen it change over the years knows tourism issues are not "occasional" but a serious issue and Dutch friends tell me it puts them off visiting the city. Growth of e-bikes and the various 'illegal' variations is a further major problem. All this is relatively new by the way. For those who want to turn London into a cycling city like Amsterdam, we should remind ourselves of the completely different topography. Amsterdam is flat, very flat. London has many very steep hills; East Dulwich is surrounded by them. Isn't it surprising then how much of a 'blight' various types of powered bikes are proving to be, even in Amsterdam? Given the much heralded benefits of pedal cycling in the world's cycling capital, with an ideal landscape for cycling and the infrastructure to support it, why do so many turn to the powered variety, I wonder? If its already a problem over there we can only wonder what will happen over here.

Some of you need to remove your rose-tinted specs. Amsterdam most certainly has issues with tourism and in summer parts of it are awful. Tourists and cycling do not seem to mix. Fat bikes and souped up e-bikes are another issue and NL is looking at a ban. Please don't resort to the usual tactic of bleating on how these are motorbikes and nothing to do with cycling. If there is a problem over there you can bet your life it'll transfer over here, as soon as the e-bike revolution truly takes hold - courtesy of people like Cllr McAsh. The cycling 'movement' is already normalising incursion of motorised vehicles into what used to be pedestrian only areas. Apparently one issue that has developed over there is of assaults on young women in local parks by boys on motorised bikes.

Tuesday night, more fireworks and it is 11.33 pm, so an illegal display.

The idea that the park was "designed" for events like a 5-day music festival is misplaced, to say the least. Excerpt taken from Southwark Council website about the park: "Peckham Rye Park and Common is a Victorian park and historic common featuring ornamental gardens, flowing streams, woodland, and a lake. It provides a pleasant refuge for both the local community and wildlife. The garden is an area of tranquillity with sensory summer planting, a winter garden, bug towers, a beehive, a pond, raised beds for community fruit and vegetable growing and a shaded meadow area with a loggery and seating. The entry gates were specially commissioned and designed by Heather Burrell. This is a beautiful oasis of peace amid the bustle of city life. "

Naughty, Earl. You are changing what I said. I said "Cllr McAsh (not the whole council, though he is the Cabinet member for Streets inSouthwark) is on record as saying he would like to see (local) streets rid of all cars". He did not say he would like to get rid of all cars. At the time he was rather playing to the gallery and possibly said the above for effect. In response to a question about whether local interventions like LTNs were making life much more difficult for car-users by, for one, increasing journey times, McAsh responded by saying that was the whole point. On the other hand, McAsh also recently 'starred' in what looked rather like an advertorial for Lime Bikes, proclaiming the wonders of using e-bikes etc.. It does look a bit kinda 'cars bad versus e-bikes good'. Don't you think? Of course, as a user of both modes of transport I see the need for both.

Really? Cllr McAsh is on the record as saying he would like to see the streets rid of all cars and car usage is being made deliberately more difficult by various council road interventions in the hope of reducing car use. Posters like you seem to support that endeavour.

Talking only about Lordship Lane, I know of young people who have come a cropper because of uneven paving, cracks etc., and who suffered injuries requiring hospital treatment. I feel if money can be found for some of the recent projects we have seen locally involving pedestrian areas, then some basic upkeep of the high street pavement is surely possible. I do think Moovart makes a good point about tree planting and mature Plane trees. We want trees, imagine how the area would look without them, but they can cause damage to pavements.

I'm not sure that's true- as in 'no spare money'; I am not commenting on the rest of your statement. I believe Southwark has a sizeable fund of money accrued from parking fines and I also believe that can be reinvested into street upkeep...if the Council chooses to use it that way. They certainly found the dosh to reconfigure and landscape Dulwich Village junction (including use of expensive, imported Indian sandstone not found elsewhere). They also seem to have money to narrow roads and build out and landscape pavement- as in MGN LTN.

And here we go again. A nice booming bomb drop sounding explosion to kick things off. Can anyone really remember a time when we had fireworks every week from September on?

That's a lot of objectors. Hard to know how the Council can ignore this level of dissatisfaction or allow the two weekend extension that the event organisers are asking for. Let them look at doing one weekend on the Common (the usual site for all other events on Peckham Rye); leave the actual park to be used as a green space and haven over all of summer, as it should be.

The issue of visibility raised in the thread was only to do with cyclists at night. As a fellow cyclist, I certainly did not beep or yell at the Dulwich-Paragon-jersey-wearing cyclist. Nor did anyone else for that matter. On that occasion there was only one individual behaving badly and it wasn't the queue of car drivers.

Sorry PR, somehow I missed that. Do you think that without a licence that means the event cannot be extended then? If so, that would be fantastic news. I would also like to see it cut back to the original size before it was extended in terms of footprint, last year.