first mate

But, is there a requirement for speed walking? Surely, slower mooching is okay, in parts. Also, you just know that if the pavements are widened, the greater the temptation for cyclists and scooters to use that to get round traffic on the roads, or to ahem 'park' hire bikes, meaning pedestrians gain very little.

But, are there advisories out for pedestrians to wear helmets and reflective gear at night, unless they are night walking along roads without footpaths, in which case it probably makes sense for them to do so. If not, is that because for the most part pedestrians are on pavements and cars on roads, limiting contact between the two, in the city at any rate. On the other hand, cyclists, if using roads (as they mostly should) are closer to other vehicles and therefore at greater risk, especially, if as some do, they take risks and weave in and out of moving traffic. I think wearing reflective gear and probably a helmet ( though I know that is contentious) is a good thing and to be encouraged, not mocked or undermined.

Angelina, I think you have identified a genuine issue and I have noted similar. If cycling, in its various forms, continues to grow then I think safety education will have to somehow be addressed.

But, if that is the only survey available then not unreasonable to quote, surely? I hope Rockets links to it so anyone so minded can read the information and figures for themselves. I am trying to make sense of the Council's recently stated CPZ plans to provide short-term paid for parking bays on residential streets and along LL to facilitate shoppers in cars, thus impeding bus/traffic flow, against Earl's apparent assertion that not many shoppers visit the area in cars.

But, as I said, neither you, Malumbu, Snowy or March commented when I expressed reservations about how the council said it wanted to allay potential LL trader fears about loss of business re a new CPZ, by creating paid for parking along LL. Given now the great enthusiasm from you all to remove LL parking and widen pavements, I do find your silence on the above, earlier in the year, odd.

But then what of the Council's stated plan to balance the needs of residents parking with that of shoppers in cars, stating it would create paid for parking spaces on LL to effect this? At the time, earlier in the summer I said this would affect buses and those of you in favour of the CPZ etc were completely silent on the matter. I am afraid all this does look like a considered tactical approach- get CPZ in and tell people what they want to hear, then a few months later launch the idea of pavement widening and removing parking on the high street.

The other consideration is that users of Lime bikes and similar, plus younger pedal cyclists, probably don't view themselves as 'cyclists' as such and so don't get kitted out or even consider that they need to. I also agree that earlier nights are another factor for the casual or hire bike user more used to cycling in the summer. I don't think I have ever seen a hire bike or scooter user wearing a helmet or reflective gear- presumably that is because the bike is just viewed as a transport tool for short term use and users do not want to be encumbered by any of the safety gear? Before anyone jumps on me for anecdotal evidence and speculation, this is just what I have seen round here, there may be hordes of similar users elsewhere that are kitted out.

But in the very recent ED CPZ consultation The Council made a point that it felt it necessary to balance the needs of residents against those of shoppers in cars and so planned on creating new paid for parking spaces on residential streets off LL as well as on the Lane itself. Why would it make such a central point if only serving a small number of shoppers?

As ever, I think Mal simply delights in provocation, it's the thrill of the chase.

I agree with HeadNun that impartiality is crucial to good, trustworthy journalism and that in this case the BBC fell short of the high standards we expect of them, also that this has led to a situation that puts the BBC in an almost impossible situation and has given fuel to those that want to destroy or control it. That said, I also agree with Sephiroth that there is an even more important issue at stake here that we must not allow to be overshadowed and that the motivation of Trump on that day was not essentially misrepresented. I think it is terrifying that Trump may be capable of muzzling and destroying an institution like the BBC, as at the same time he perpetuates a narrative and furore that aides him as he repeatedly seeks to draw attention away from his own undoubtedly criminal behaviour. I think the BBC has to fight this and only hope that in the process they/we are not bankrupted.

Earl, in my last post I quoted Rockets, it was he who said he hoped the council instead of making widening pavements a priority intervention, would take a more pragmatic approach, like fixing lighting, fixing pavement surfaces. I guess in the above you thought by OP I was referring to the original poster? I meant 'other poster'. I hope that clarifies? Well, if that is the case, why did the Council seek to reassure businesses by saying it would ensure paid for parking spaces for shoppers in cars along Lordship Lane, and additionally create more paid for spaces on residential streets adjacent to Lordship Lane, qualifying this by stating the Council had to balance the needs of shoppers in cars against those of residents?

I don't think that's what was meant, Earl and I also think you know that. The pragmatic approach referred to other street interventions which were identified in the OP.

My goodness, that is a shocking lack of care shown by the Council and individual Councillors. I had thought Cllr Hamvas would fight to preserve and protect Peckham Rye and the park environment. How can we now possibly trust this Council to do this? Cllr Rose, who was the Cabinet Member in charge of all this has a lot to answer for.

@Rockets "I think the removal of car parking spaces would be nothing more than a council CPZ creation programme and I would like to hope a more pragmatic approach is taken". I agree, especially as we know the Council really want to CPZ the whole of Southwark, if they can. Their approach seems so contradictory at times, which of itself does not invite confidence. Their incredible level of concern for the environment in regard to street interventions, looks bizarre when set against what they are quite happy to impose onto Peckham Rye- it makes no sense. In the ED Consultation results document, the Council state that CPZ are being imposed on certain streets to reduce parking pressure but then note that this will likely create parking pressure on adjacent streets...again this makes no sense. In reality the intervention does not solve parking pressure it simply moves the problem to another street.

At the last ED CPZ consultation, there were concerns that any CPZ would negatively impact local shops and their trade by removing parking for shoppers in cars (a point that was raised by businesses in LL, if I remember). The Council response was that there would be more paid for parking on LL to make up for this, as well as paid for spaces on residential streets adjacent to LL. If parking is decreased on LL it is likely to increase on residential side streets, especially where parking is free. I don't think we are anywhere near a tipping point that all those shoppers in cars will suddenly switch to buses or bikes.

There seem to be all sorts of blocks for this event being mounted on the Common, one is that it was 'designed especially' for the current site, though the organisers seem to have had absolutely no problem rejigging their plans to the original site footprint to expand the event to what we had last year- which I think really imposed on a large part of the park and spoilt the feel. I would suggest pressing very hard for relocation to the Common ( also closer to transport links). There must be a way, surely? If not, then wholesale relocation to a more suitable venue. I just do not think the park should be subjected to a festival-goer footfall of 60,000 plus over the summer.

I may be viewing things through rose tinted spectacles but I have not seen one road sweeper on the residential streets near me, in the past I would see them almost daily in the autumn/winter. I especially remember a lovely guy who was I think a Rastafarian. He was really diligent but I think now retired. He was celebrated by the Council a number of years back with a large banner with his face on it. It could be that I am missing the replacement sweepers, or that automated sweepers have replaced the people, only I have not seen them and the streets near me have a lot of wet and slippery leaves along the pavement, something that cannot be safe for various types of pavement user. It also disguises dog poo that has been missed by the odd owner!

The pavements definitely need mending along stretches of LL, I have known a few people come a cropper as a result of cracks and uneven walking surfaces. I would though resist pavement widening; I think it may create more problems than it solves. However, I suspect the Council would be all ears at the suggestion. On another note, wouldn't it be great if the Council could reinstate street upkeep, like leaf sweeping. The leaves have been a bit of a slip issue this year. Others can correct me, as I am not sure, but could some of the substantial council parking fine slush fund be used for this sort of essential pavement upkeep?

The timing of all this is interesting. After the second ED consultation when the council decided to make three roads a CPZ, they stated that they would be allowing timed paid for parking slots along LL, to help shoppers. I had queried at the time whether this would hinder bus travel. Pavement widening will mean shoppers are likely to find it harder to park on LL and more of them will probably try to park on residential side streets, especially for free parking, or perhaps not visit at all. Of course, placing parking pressure on side streets will also probably propel more streets to go for CPZ, something the council wants. The council has also stated that it will put in more double yellows everywhere (it says for safety but a handy side effect is to further reduce parking). It also says that in the interests of fairness and to balance the needs of shoppers who drive against those of residents, it will place paid for parking slots on residential streets off LL. I am not sure I am in favour of the knock-on impacts of pavement widening. Surely it would increase congestion on LL at certain times, as well as residential side streets, as shoppers and residents drive round looking for places to park.

Don't you think we have suffered enough road and pavement upheaval, for now? Why not have a break? That said, I do agree the pavements need mending as in many places they are a major trip hazard, but widening, no.

Yes, but he knows the visual association more than makes up for that, yes, it might as well say 'Southwark safer streets, sponsored by Lime'.

I don't know for how long you have followed the traffic threads but if you have then you may be aware of discussion and disagreement about a range of issues. It is all there if you care to read back.

I don't want to go down another rabbit hole on this but calling someone a liar and racist can be both insult and an accusation, I'd say. So you are both right 🙂 I am also glad that you qualified misinformation with an 'apparent'. To be clear about that you would have had to follow the threads closely over the years (something you may have done, hence your wise qualification). There has been plenty of twisting and misinterpretation throughout by many concerned. There are some very well qualified individuals who have questioned and countered assertions by Earl et al over the years, but who finally left the threads because of continued obfuscation.

Same here. Incredibly selfish behaviour. Also illegal.

I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.