first mate

You can give an address, as the roads within the consultation are listed along with a category that says "other". However, as you say, people can tick one of the named roads, even if they do not live in one and there is no way of knowing. Also, the 'other' category allows equal weight to be given to the response of someone that lives a mile away and visits the area (perhaps cycling in) and someone who lives on a street close by or adjacent to the consultation area, who will be directly affected by displaced parking. The over- arching question is how the council has given an undertaking that CPZ will only be imposed if streets want it? How can they know?

Geh, please share more as and when you get it. This is an example of misinformation being given out to residents at the 'consultation' meetings. Another poster was told at one of the meetings that streets that do not want CPZ will not be made to have it. It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians.

On 07/02/2025 at 09:33, Earl Aelfheah said: For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI Data is separated out according to vehicle or pedestrian. I need to look out how data is sourced and whether that might involve collisions on paved or pedestrian areas. That aside, there is a category for pedal cycles and for motorcycles. Which category do e-bikes fall under? I assume illegal e-bikes go under motorcycles and other e-bikes under pedal bikes?

Posted in wrong thread.

I can confirm I am not involved with or affiliated to any of those groups mentioned.

Precisely, and they have already built and still we have below average interest in cycling in the borough. Having listened to a Southwark Scrutiny session looking at the cycling issue, it seems there are significant barriers to uptake which building more and more infrastructure will not address or shift.

Ah, okay LOL. I thought it was a bit brusque.

Snowy, you seem to know quite a lot about this stuff. Can you shed any light on how the consultation results are collated? How do we know if someone calling for CPZ in their street (by answering 'yes' to that mandatory question, "do you want CPZ on your street") actually lives directly inside or on a street adjacent to, the consultation area?

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure.

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure. March, you are right, I am reposting this elsewhere.

I believe the council rationale was that streets your side would not be affected if CPZ is installed on Melbourne Grove and streets off it. For that reason they have not let streets your side know. However, they have likely alerted the various pro CPZ pressure groups, whose advocates may not live even close by. We also know that people living as much as a mile away are responding and, presumably, those responses will impact the final result.

I asked this question on another thread by mistake, so it got lost. Can anyone explain how CPZ results are collated and interpreted so the council is clear how each street in the consultation area has responded? One of the mandatory questions asks if you want CPZ in your street, however only the streets in the consultation area are named? How do respondents living well outside the consultation area answer that question? If that question is not answered the response is discounted.

I hope things are as you say. If impacts limited then all well and good. Fingers crossed it continues. Yes, you are right, sorry about that.

I am pretty sure about the paid for spaces at the end of each street off LL and that they were presenting parking on on LL as a way to support businesses. Either way, it just struck me as odd that with so many against shoppers in cars that a case for CPZ was in part being made on the need to support hem.

I apologise and withdraw my comment. I am a cyclist so absolutely no problem with that either. We can all agree the crossing is very necessary; just wish it could be done more quickly as it will create a lot of problems.

Think I read it in a leaflet. I cannot remember exactly because written information pushed through doors was different from what was online.

Absolutely, I am sure you are. Can you just help me understand how the consultation answers work if you respond to the question about whether you want CPZ on your street in the consultation area? How does that work if you don't live in the consultation area? Sorry Mal, you may not know, but in terms of collating the responses and data I wonder how this info is sifted so they know what consultees living in each street within the consultation area want? It is an important and relevant question because, even recently, a poster on here was advised that no street would be made CPZ if the street did not want it. Can anyone advise?

Ah, I did not know that. A glance at the LCC and Southwark Cyclist website shows how very invested they are getting in on consultations all over the borough.

They also want to install 'metered' parking at the end of every side street. What you'll get is more congestion and more driving round waiting for spaces. I genuinely do not think this is the positive move it has been presented as. Quite apart from that, it is a large chunk of money every year on a permit, then any visitors / necessary building and maintenance work on top, and by all accounts still no guarantee you will necessarily be able to park when you need to.

I agree what the council are proposing makes no sense. If CPZ makes it harder to park on side streets surely providing more spaces on the Lane will increase existing problems with congestion etc.? It is not just about shoppers either.Many in the local workforce drive in and park on side streets. It may not be that easy for them to use public transport or cycle, though I expect all the usual rhetoric about laziness etc..

It is also the council that have made a case for CPZ citing the need to balance resident parking needs against those of visiting shoppers in cars, so it is the council that is making the case for visitors in cars and not only that, they also point out that they are supporting business on LL by letting cars park in the high street. Please show where I have led with the claim that "CPZ will destroy the high street". You posted a leaflet and said you were talking about that.

That is because more traffic has been funnelled onto Lordship Lane after imposition of the Melbourne Grove LTN. What surprises me and ought to surprise you is that it seems the council are happy to see congestion on LL get even worse, by encouraging shoppers to park there. It just seems so contradictory.

It happens already, it has always happened, and I am fine with it. It just means sometimes we cannot park outside the house and occasionally have to park on another street. There is no need for a CPZ.

@Malumbu So you live well out of area but say you participated in the consultation. What I do not understand is when you answered the question about whether you want CPZ on your street, how did you answer? This is to help me understand how it works, because your street is not within the consultation area? BTW it is Melbourne Grove, not road.