first mate

I had to laugh when I read that. Perhaps the skateboarders will return once building work on vanity square is finally completed. I would imagine a fair bit of this space will also be used for Lime, scooter and bike storage?

A visit to LCCs website will reveal just how involved the cycle lobby have been in LTNs and CPZ throughout London. For years they have urged members from all around London to involve themselves in council consultations on CPZ and LTN. It has been very deliberate and systematic. I also find it strange that someone giving off such a strong air of moral superiority, telling us all to put our energy into more worthy issues, some of which they list, spends so much time on these threads.

That's because for some of us cycling is a tool not membership of a club and culture. As for LTNs are you really suggesting that LCC and other cycling organisations have not campaigned long and hard for LTNs and CPZ? Getting members to piggyback onto consultations, even though they are not local. The LCC website has page after page of advice directing members how to influence Councils, how to utilise social media, how to organise grass roots campaigning, just to get as many LTNs and CPZs installed as possible.

"and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute." And this illustrates not only your own biases (a seeming inclination to think other people are stupid) but also such a need to try to score a point that you roll over into unnecessary and offensive posting behaviour.

Earl, rules and etiquette around cycling are not clear and we see the negative results of this, daily. It is this aspect that must be addressed. Your sensitivity to what is obvious to many of us is beginning to remind me of the Dave Hill article.

Earl, obviously you did not read my last post, here it is again below; top tip 'recommended' in DP is 5mph, but you already know that with your extensive reading around DP and traffic. Elsewhere road speeds are generally indicated, on paths that do not have dedicated cycle ways, I believe cyclists should dismount and push." " Member 4.2k Posted 3 hours ago (edited) If you want to speed cycle get on a 30mph plus road or go to a velodrome. My view is that on dual purpose paths ie those with dedicated cycle paths, cyclists should still proceed with caution, on paths that are not dual use unless deserted, cyclists should dismount and walk, in the park cyclists should proceed with caution and not exceed 5mph, if lots of pedestrians they probably should consider dismounting and walking. Paths and Parks are spaces where pedestrians take precedence, in my view. I would make an exception for mobility scooters.

If you want to speed cycle get on a 30mph plus road or go to a velodrome. My view is that on dual purpose paths ie those with dedicated cycle paths, cyclists should still proceed with caution, on paths that are not dual use unless deserted, cyclists should dismount and walk, in the park cyclists should proceed with caution and not exceed 5mph, if lots of pedestrians they probably should consider dismounting and walking. Paths and Parks are spaces where pedestrians take precedence, in my view. I would make an exception for mobility scooters.

Well do you or don't you? And, Lime biking commuters are almost certainly going to be travelling at speeds well over what is recommended.

Do agree that last point. What looks like a safe bit of road from the car driver perspective can be seriously risky for the cyclist and I have nearly come a cropper a few times on uneven road, cycling in too close to the kerb. Hidden potholes at night are another nightmare and just as pavement must be improved for pedestrians - with cyclists always giving way to pedestrians- road surfaces must also be made safer.

Wrong thread Earl, this is about Lime Bikes not Dulwich Park in the 60's. But as a serial deflector and derailer (hope you appreciate my little cycling pun) perhaps you could change gears and start a separate thread on your other passion - cars in Dulwich in the 60's and 70's, and please take March with you. Seriously, stop it!

Just to be clear, a number of us with reservations about local LTNs and who feel there are issues with Lime bikes and the way the council has handled change to increase cycling etc, are not anti cyclist. On the contrary we are also cyclists.

Just to be clear, a number of us with reservations about local LTNs etc are not anti cyclist. On the contrary we are also cyclists.

Quite. If there is a pressing need to pedestrianise and 'green' road space, there is arguably a precedent for pedestrianising park space, including tarmac areas within. I would make an exception for the horses.

Sorry, I don't know. In answer to March, can we stick to the subject of Lime bikes please? If you want to start a new thread on local driving issues in the 60's and 70's, go ahead. Do people here think that cyclists should stick to around 5mph when using the park as a cut through for the daily commute? Do you support using the park for velodrome type speed cycling and if so, why? Rather disingenuous post, motorcyclists are on two wheels; not cars. As Rockets pointed out, you see delivery vans for the cafe and also vehicles for park maintenance and upkeep- hardly rat run material. As I say elsewhere, e-bikes and cyclists are the ones currently using Dulwich Park as a cut through.

Thing is, I did a quick search and it seems there may be ways to soup up e-bikes without it being obvious they are modified. Therefore, it seems policing on speed, penalties etc.., just as for cars, may be necessary? have not read link yet. If this is already on the cards then good.

Over the years I remember a time when the odd car drove around the park, usually with an elderly person inside. I do not recall it ever being used as a cut through and if it was those instances would be vanishingly rare. In my experience Dulwich Park has always been used as a park and only a park, oh and also a place to exercise police horses. Don't know if the local riding school still gets out on the sand route. Anyway, relevance to this Lime Bike thread is pretty much zero, other than to observe that the fastest 'traffic' through the park these days is from cycling commuters, who do use it as a cut through. Sadly, many do not observe the 5mph, which though not legally obliged to we might agree that as a courtesy to others, they should.

Apology accepted and FWIW, I agree this is primarily an issue of human behaviour but change to facilitate cycling is being pushed through at quite a fast rate (in some respects for laudable reasons- which I do get). My point is that if vehicle switch happens in the desired numbers those same badly behaved humans will show up in that context but without necessary checks in place- as P68 says.

Again, you are getting very confused Earl. Please show where I have stated I am a scientist? Given your Trumpian ability to present and argue using 'alternative' facts, I repeat, we are not a slow city, people want to get around fast. Therefore, if more people take to cycling because they cannot use a car - this is a stated aim of Southwark- it is more likely that the incidences of careless cycling we are seeing will also increase. What are we going to do about it? Any ideas- and no, it is not just about illegally modified e-bikes. "Seeming to suggest" is a very low standard of evidence 🤣

I think we have to factor the ongoing costs of Vanity Square in terms of impact on those with limited mobility etc.. A cost analysis of that long term could be interesting. That aside, I am glad that you have finally made some admission that the cost of this non-mandated space is excessive. It has taken us months to get here though. I have cycled near that space on numerous occasions now and I honestly have not noticed masses of people socialising - the only proof this happens is photos of cyclists (possibly invited by LCC and from all over London) converging for a meet, or of local anti LTN protestors. That is it. As for Christmas day, well if you think spending millions warrants a one day social event then I think we are lost. Plus, it is not as though there are plenty of other places in Dulwich Village for people and Carol singers to congregate as the need arises.

No more spurious or embarrassing than trying to conflate closure and pedestrianisation of a major junction with access of cars to Dulwich Park in the 60's. That aside, are you seriously trying to argue that our local council, for example, is not trying to get people out of cars by changing road design/ access? Are you seriously proposing that our councillor in charge of streets is not on the record as saying he would like to see all cars removed from our streets so that people can walk and cycle?

I refer you back to the Dave Hill article. If cycling increases and we engineer road infrastructure to force people in that direction then we will get more speeding on bikes, more bad behaviour, more illegal modification of e-bikes. We do not live in a slow culture, people want to get from A-Z in the fastest possible time.

It is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money, in a wealthy area, in a cost of living crisis. Closing DP as a cut through, if it was ever genuinely used that way by many, which is doubtful, is beside the point and that closure did not cost millions. Trying to compare closure of DP to cars with closure of a main thoroughfare and junction is ludricous. The only relevance of Dulwich Park to this issue is that it is a large green area where people can meet and socialise- there is also a cafe. This rationale was used by the council for creation of Vanity Square- "a place to socialise", they said. You know and I know, there was absolutely no need to create a small square in which to socialise in Dulwich Village. The area is chock full of places to meet and socialise already. To put a new multi million pound 'carless square' creation on the doorstep of a new housing development offering storage for 20 cars is bonkers and something of an own goal.

No, just highlighting the odd and ironic juxtaposition of the Council's choice to impose a multi million pound but small car free square, right next door to a new development offering parking for 20 cars. Come on, it is a bit unfortunate.

Also remember when Cartuli was Le Chardon and then Thistles, or was it the other way round? Remember Le Chardon as being rather good, had some nice meals there. Franklins used to be called SE22 and Rodney Franklin used to run an antiques shop Camberwell way and you could get a really good Sunday roast there. I also used to like Chandelier, they did good Kedgeree and it was a nice space to visit.

And this was utterly predictable but the cyclisterati, high on their Brooke's saddles, refuse to admit there are any potential problems with the bike and e-bike revolution they are intent on forcing through.