first mate

Spot on. We need councillors who are interested in serving the area rather than using their role to earn brownie points with their party at national level. The partisan nature of local politics is a problem. Quite apart from the above, the street blocking planters local to me are now beginning to look a complete mess and really shabby.

If barely any cyclists do 20mph then why the huge issue imposing it? With the advent and proliferation of e-bikes it is daft not to. Much easier and less confusing to have a speed limit that applies to all road users. But, since this thread is about cycling on pavements, let me add that it is also really important that able-bodied cyclists dismount and walk when on single use footpaths. Over this weekend I have seen so many cyclists weaving in and out of pedestrians on pavements. I am so glad that in this regard, in the Vanity Square area at least, Southwark Council have realised there is a real and growing issue with this.

I think that those who are disabled are generally likely to support the idea that cyclists able to dismount and walk on pavements should do so, as a moral obligation. Able bodied cyclists weaving around pedestrians on the pavement can make pedestrians and those less able bodied feel at risk and uncomfortable. This is just common sense and it seems Southwark agrees. I think they are also likely to support Lime bikers dismounting when on single use pavement. With their proliferation, we are seeing Lime riders on pavements much more frequently, as well as Lime bikes left scattered on pavements- a further block for other pavement users, especially those who are disabled. One of the pro cycling posters on here has in the past stated that disability scooters should not be allowed in cycle lanes as they would slow everyone down and they would not be able to do their commute or time rides as fast as they would like. They felt mobility scooter users should instead use bus lanes! I obviously hope that sense of priorities is not shared by you and your chums.

What an odd tangent? If anyone is cycling and able to dismount in a pedestrian area then they should. Clearly, if unable to dismount because of a disability then they won't. I would also make an exception for people on mobility scooters. But is your point really relevant? Presumably Southwark Council don't think so or they would not have put out advisory signs saying "Cyclists dismount". There is a very simple fix, adopted elsewhere Campaigns

Currently advisory but presumably would not be put out unless an issue- I recently saw a number of cyclists weaving in and out of pedestrians in a small space, when they really could have dismounted. I take it you support this type of cycling behaviour and see no issue with it? You seem to suggest that the signs are nothing more than a cynical, box ticking exercise by the council?

In response, Southwark have put up signs around Vanity Square, asking cyclists to dismount in the pedestrian area. That suggests there is an issue.

Seems Southwark Council don't think it is hyperbole, else why the sudden appearance of advisory signs and stencils? Glad you confirm you do not support cycling on pavements. I am clearly seeing a lot more of this than are you.

Nothing Earl, to stop you responding directly to me with thread-relevant thoughts on local cycling on pavements? Do you support this, yes or no?

Nope, the lounging technique employed by a number of pro LTN posters is what resulted in a separate traffic section. But still, you guys attempt to derail threads 😉

But this thread is about cycling on pavements. You are doing your usual 'yeah, but what about cars?' and deflecting in the process. If you think it is fine for more cyclists to cycle on all and any paving, whether a shared space or not, just say, then we know where you stand. If you don't agree with that, then what can we do to ensure pedestrians feel safe on the pavement, without having to worry about random cyclists weaving in and out? I see that Southwark have now put signs on Vanity Square, asking cyclists to dismount, so clearly even the Council must think there is an issue.

Never said what? I thought the point is that you agree with the Dulwich Roads rationale and version of events for their tweets and Rockets does not?

Interesting to witness the twisting and turning that Dulwich Roads and its supporters/members on here are using to try and get out of this.

Thanks for your helpful reply. I hope what you say about the physical badge is true, it would not make sense to limit use to just one car. How shocking that (more than likely) some other family members of Blue Badge holders are abusing the system unless the badges were fake? Their actions negatively affect people living with disability who might desperately need more than 4 hours parking at the hospital.

The stipulation that only one vehicle can be registered and associated with the Blue Badge seems short-sighted. What if you need a carer or relative to take you somewhere, they may not always be the same person or car.

Eh, Dulwich Roads have been on here posting and commenting on the mental health of other posters- words to the effect of you need to stop your unhealthy obsession with..., we live 'rent free' in your head. I found that aspect quite interesting as that sort of phrasing and approach echoes that of some regular and rabidly pro LTN posters on here and is pretty low and gross, to be honest. I wonder if those posters are closely linked to Dulwich Roads? BTW your vapours about 'attacks' on local councillors is ridiculous. if local councillors make poor decisions they should be held accountable for them.

I believe Royal Mail or International Distribution Services PLC, has recently been sold to a Czech billionaire. It is alleged by some that there is an intention to asset strip the company. If there was a law firm brave enough and enough disgruntled users came forward, perhaps ED residents could take out something like a class action. I think it needs something of that magnitude to effect any kind of change.

Can you really? I looked and it is literally wall to wall car- catching. A fair bit seems to be generated by cyclists with headcams catching all and any infractions. Who is behind the X account?

Do they highlight different types of dangerous or careless behaviour, involving different modes of transport, or do they focus only on one type?

Many years ago, a guy with 'issues' was found to have gone round a number of streets and systematically yanked off and broken wing mirrors on loads of cars. This sounds similar. An expensive pain for anyone on the receiving end.

Suspect the slope is deliberate to facilitate water run off. The new cycle way is cobbled and I understand it may be unpopular with some cyclists as it is not comfortable. Wonder if this was a deliberate design feature to slow cyclists down in this area?

Agree with this sentiment. The careless behaviour runs across a range of cyclists, not just the hobbyists. There seems to be an emerging trend that any pedestrian space is seen as fair game and many cyclists prefer to weave in and out of pedestrians rather than dismount and walk.

The stretch from East Dulwich road to Barry road is bad for that. Both on the pavement and road. It's very dark there by the Gardens bus stop so you can't see them until they're very close. I don't understand why one would take such a risk and leave themselves vulnerable by not being visible to both pedestrian and fellow road users. I know, it definitely needs addressing. On top of everything else many wear dark/ black clothing which would be fine if they used a fluorescent jacket or strips, but they don't. Crazy.

Clearly Earl has zero interest in helping to educate cyclists to slow down and pay more heed to pedestrians around them. Instead, he recycles an earlier post in a desperate attempt to change the subject. Today, walking past Vanity Square, I was struck by the amount of cyclists careering around pedestrians, not one chose to just dismount and walk a few yards. Really poor. Perhaps the council need to put a few advisory stencils in Vanity Square, mind you it would mar that gorgeously expensive paving.

Only the reported data and nothing yet for this year. Glad you are clear that an apparent reduction does not necessarily show the true picture- and, of course, we also have a number of people who live in the area saying that crime has gone up. In conclusion, we don't yet know.

Malumbu said: "But some of the discussion is incredibly simplistic, blaming for example a possible increase in some crimes due to improved street lighting and less vehicles." But it was you that first suggested a relationship between street lighting and crime?! Here you are, the very first response to the OP.