first mate

Not sure why you would imply I am the type to "steal"? It is low level attack along the lines of your earlier comments implying that I lied about cycling behaviour I had witnessed. Are you ok? So we have established that you have read the paper in its entirety but are unable to share the information because it is paid for, but that does not stop you outlining the methodology? No harm in doing that, surely?

@Earl Aelfheah Okay, so you agree there may be a reason to look more carefully at speed controls for cyclists? If you don't think the policy is necessarily negative as outlined in the article why then do you view the article as having a slightly negative tone? That does not make sense. A "wake up call" simply means that instead of going into knee- jerk denial mode that an increase in cycling and cycling modes (e-bikes; cargo bikes) might require additional controls, we open our minds to what is going on in other countries with greater experience of cycling infrastructure, and take note.

It was signed off by him last month and the document also indicated a statutory consultation in June. So far nothing. I do not think the leadership debacle, which was some time later, will affect that decision. However, I wonder if he will also refuse to serve under Sarah King?

The simplest thing would be to post it up or send a copy over by PM. It undermines your position to withhold that information.

@Earl Aelfheah https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963 Do you really think putting speed limits on cyclists is negative? Given this is being considered in the mecca of cycling, it should surely serve as a wake up call?

Has anyone heard anything more about a second consultation given Cllr McAsh' signed approval of the recommendation for a reduced 3-road CPZ?

Heaven forbid, but you have a point. With Labour in central government it may feel 'safe' to shake things up a bit. I wish we had some decent independent candidates, preferably not those hoping to use the role as a stepping stone to greater things.

I agree. Internal rifts and factions will be music to Farage's ears. McAsh wrote something not long ago about how the centre and left need each other. This government is far from ideal but we need some stability not a far-left coup.

@Insuflo No, in light of Tory mismanagement over Covid and subsequent fallout there were other issues to focus on. Surely you are not suggesting everyone voting Labour at the time were doing so to show support for LTNs? There was no mention in the manifesto of LTNs or CPZ as a central policy. What Labour did state up front was that they promised local residents would be put at the heart of decisions made about their area. Subsequently, the Dulwich Village LTN was imposed against overwhelming opposition- so that manifesto pledge was broken, almost immediately. There was no mandate for LTN meddling, it was just done, some would say opportunistically.

Quick fact check; Southwark Labour did not run on a pro LTN agenda. A policy to increase LTNs and COZ was not mentioned in the manifesto. Not only that, within East Dulwich imposition of CPZ had been roundly rejected at consultation.

What a bizarre analogy. It does suggest that some of you approach this discussion as a game where the primary aim is to win.

Groan, not this again. The same people that infer others are obsessed and driven by conspiracies then imply that anyone objecting to Southwark's imposition of CPZ and LTN or the effects of the same, must therefore be part of some right wing political group, whether Tory, Reform, or something more extreme. There was no mention of LTNs or CPZ in the last local Labour manifesto, I would imagine they did not want to risk it as they were already aware of significant local objection. However, as Spartacus says, at the time and in the wake of Covid, the overarching concern was to send out a message to the Tories.

@ Sue It is, but some of us may not understand the methodology enough to know if it has been applied well or not.

Perhaps those of you who know better can break the research down for us. After all, if the aim is to persuade it is in your intetests to explain. We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates. Meaning this, as above.

Does not seem to mention E-bikes, presumably not seen so much as part of the active travel solution? What is meant by 'wheeling' exactly?

March, the document I saw on June 7th and posted about on here, was in a different format to the one you linked to on June 16. That aside, I am now clear that a second statutory consultation for the new reduced CPZ has yet to take place and was slated to be done in June, so presumably it will be carried out this month?

Think he used to do stuff for Russia Today.

Allegedly, McAsh has been involved in writing articles and campaigned for Momentum, including a step-by-step guide to 'de-selecting Labour MPs' under the pseudonym Eric Sim.

The wording I read said that the new reduced CPZ was due to go live in October "subject to statutory consultation". This new 16 June document you linked does not use that wording. It suggests consultation would take place in June. What consultation does the earlier document I saw, which then could not be found using exactly the same search terms, refer to? And, what consultation does the newer version, you posted up, refer to? Clearly this is not the consultation on the wider scheme as that was already closed by this time. Is anyone else aware of another consultation last month on the reduced scheme? You may find it tiresome but many of us do not trust the council or its new leader on this and associated matters. As it is, there do seem to be some odd things going on, with versions of information and documents stumbled upon online, then seeming to disappear until replaced with revised versions, while the person in charge of implementing the scheme is apparently out of the loop on those same documents which are somehow 'easily' found by March46 on this forum and allegedly available to the public since the 16 June. That document is also signed and dated by James McAsh on 16 stating with immediate effect, meaning the decision was made on 16. How could The person in charge of CPZ implementation still not know on 23rd June whether decision had been made?

I found timeframes, but the wording if the section is different to that I read in the earlier document, that definitely said it would go live in October "subject to statutory consultation" read by me early June.

If all the info was up online and signed off by James McAsh on 16 June, how could the Head of Controlled Parking be saying on June 23rd that a decision had not yet been made?

Yes, I think CPZ next to the very busy Lordship Lane will ramp parking pressure up nicely. The report is contradictory, within the CPZ they say they want to protect resident parking but simultaneously also want residents to give up using their cars. They do not want commuters but do want people to visit and shop in their cars. They really hope there will be no displaced parking and have researched and planned so this won't happen on surrounding streets but also feel shoppers will be okay as they can park on surrounding streets for free if they do not want to pay within the CPZ. They also advise that it is likely there will be parking displacement and calls for CPZ on surrounding streets as a result, so intend to consult with more streets very soon. I am still trying to understand why the June 6th document, different to the June 16 document posted by March, refers to an October implementation subject to statutory consultation? I cannot see reference to this in the June 16 version?

He is one ambitious young man, no surprise.

I did read through but could not find mention of October implementation 'subject to statutory consultation'. Where does it say this, please? I ask because at Cllr McAsh sign off it reads like the CPZ will go in with immediate effect. In terms of the three roads, the majorities in favour is interesting. It occurs that family members, if allowed to participate as individuals, can boost the ' majority' in favour, I do not think there is a count per household (flats within a house being separate households). Happy to be corrected. Just out and about talking to people, it does not feel like there is majority support on all three roads. It seems like the council has been having 'informal' meetings and talks with some individuals on these streets for some time. Unsurprisingly other residents seem never to get a knock on the door. The council will have a good idea which families are in support. The majorities in favour are not huge, had they been I would not have questioned the results.

Spartacus, your last comment, which I assume is a verbal drum roll, did make me pause for a moment!