first mate

If it had wheels on it it would not need to be kept in the same place all the time, potentially freeing up that space for use by others, at times. As it is, it seems that car owners will be subsidising/ paying for these permanent structures to be on the street.

Inspired by Malumbu's Peter Skellern post on another thread, I wonder if we can fashion some Alanis Morrisette style lyrics in tribute to Chicken's latest and revelatory post "LTN Ironic"? An LTN was opened in 2021 Despite flawed data it's still going strong But the council are determined 'cos it's worth a few pence On the boundary it brings exhaust fumes to your white picket fence And isn't it ironic, don't you think? It's like acid rain on your wedding day It's free parking when you've already paid It's the weasel words that you just couldn't take And who would've thought, it figures

Actually that did make me laugh. But, I think you need to get a bit more with it, Mal. Of course, you may have had another career as a DJ of a certain type and vintage, where you only ever refer to women as laaaydeeez.

Bless you Sue. That is a brilliant question.

"man or lady" ? Interesting choice of words Mal. Most would say man or woman. Nothing is secure when parked on the street, many cars are stolen or vandalised, as you know. Storage which must be paid for may be a bit more secure. But seems clear that car owners will be required to subsidise that storage or, as you have suggested, pay for free, secure bike storage. Quite how you conclude that someone who is a self-professed cyclist is anti cycling is quite a leap.

Can you quote where anyone who is against local LTNs has said the "Council do a perfect job of implementing LTNs"? Sorry, cannot resist, is "implementing LTNs ironically" now Southwark Council policy? It's a fascinating idea and may well be true. Please tell us more about the aims and objectives of implementing traffic flow measures ironically?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-symptoms-and-what-to-do/ The above was reviewed in March 2023 and next review 2026, so this is nearest official advice at moment, I reckon. Happy to be corrected though.

But if he is hiring vehicles out that must mean they are not there much of the time and others can use the spaces. Also, it sounds like there is not much parking pressure in your street at the moment? Currently, anyone can park ( or store as you call it) a bike on most streets for free.

And allegedly made TFL employees cry. It is hoped not a weekly event...but who knows.

Totally disingenuous EA. It is about revenue, pure and simple, why try to hide it? Again it is not storage. A bike hangar is storage. A garage is storage.

It feels like the two months McAsh said he would need to look at the data may soon be up, if not already, so we should hear soon.

What is the route from Goose Green to Sydenham Hill? Is there one?

You mean the local data that many view as flawed/incomplete and therefore worthless. The data that when challenged on its accuracy at a meeting with One Dulwich, Cllr McAsh promised to go away and investigate and let them know the findings. Everyone is still waiting...

Spartacus said "I'm sure it is, otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to put the path up to the cafe in, build a car park and associated road in the park. Therefore logic dictates that widening an existing path and making it better for cycling is within their powers" Just to get back to the need for a cycle path along the Nunhead side of Peckham Rye. Is there really any good reason why the track at the edge if the park could not be re-purposed, thereby avoiding a lot of hassle along the road?

@chicken, hoping you answer Heartblock?

Indeed, and especially as I believe they are constructing a cycle path on the opposite side of the park; that bit opposite the boys Harris Academy, where they also intend to fell trees to improve drainage. Therefore, if the relevant equipment will be on hand to do that work on one side of the park, why not the other?

Would it not make more sense to tarmac and widen the dirt track into a proper cycle way? Is it not close enough to the footpath to benefit from street lighting?

Sounds like another way to cause havoc on a main road. Given people already cycle through Peckham Rye in number every day, why is this necessary?

I wonder what came of the strongly worded letter Cllr Williams sent to Lime? We have heard nothing more about that. The problem for the council is they have built so much of their active travel policy to hang on e scooter and e bike hire availability that they probably have zero leverage with the big boy hire supply outfits.

Narrowly missed by an adult male going full throttle on a lime bike on pavement on Barry Road yesterday.

At the Southwark Council environment scrutiny session earlier this year it was made very clear that electric cars are on borrowed time and would be the next target. They don't want any cars, so they say, but do not seem in a hurry to get rid of the council fleet. However, if more people dump petrol and go electric, the council will be circling for revenue. P68said: "I'm afraid that presupposes they are in favour of electric cars, but there is clear evidence, in their own statements, that they wish to drive any (my emphasis) private car ownership out of Southwark. Providing car infrastructure (even for electric cars) therefore would be contrary to their policy. This has everything to do with political principal and very little actually to do with e.g. pollution or public health and well-being. A council which is prepared to charge owners and users of cars specified for the disabled (and/ or block them from entering public spaces) has no interest in the well being of those who live, or pass through, 'their' space."

Surely any consultation on these measures that did not have a yes/no response option should be run again then? How can consultation be viewed as valid if the process and questions are different, especially in regard to borough-wide proposals?

LL a fascinating and very well argued post. You have captured some of the inherent contradictions in the council approach perfectly and it will be interesting to see if their underpinning rationale/narrative changes in light of potential legal issues you identify. It is so useful to have a poster with some legal knowhow on here.

I remain convinced a fair few are former boy racers who are now born again cyclists, they just cannot resist the lure of speed.

Whatever happened to the light-hearted and positive version of Malumbu? Suddenly it is all bollox and not giving a monkeys. Tell us, if as the chicken maintains, borough -wide CPZ is all part of the council's mandated plan to improve public transport why did they not simply state that in their manifesto. Why be oblique? just to add, it would seem the council don't share your glass half full view of local transport or surely they would not have bothered to highlight it in their manifesto and campaign.