first mate

Great. People who are able may well continue and more who are genuinely able to cycle everywhere may well start, however, for now, I am in favour of overturning street closures.

The ambulance is past the red light but still being held up.

82 now

54 already, think those numbers will be up in no time.

Than you!

500 signatures needed.

Here we go

?Are they really being that reckless in comparison? Seems there are so many other failings that you could direct your ire towards. If it came down to a choice of the two, I think I'd rather take my chances chatting in the skate park than picking up some asparagus in M&S or hopping on the 176 with the chin-warmer brigade?. What does chin-warmer brigade mean?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > would also make it super easy to get to Herne Hill > for Thameslink services. > > If people could hop on a hire bike and leave it at > the station, it may also have a positive impact on > car congestion along EDG Sadly, seems bike theft is on the rise and making all day parking at station secure enough possibly not realistic, also only limited space outside. People can use folders though and take them into work.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What?s happened to the adventure playground? That?s a point. That is also quite a large area and, if not being used, might be a better space for noisier activities.

Why Rockets, they?re all cycling in from Kent now😉

I had suggested sessions of yoga, tai- chi, etc.. in summer? Quite a few people already go to this area to do this anyway so that could be developed for the community on a pay as you go basis? The ?club? house could be used for massage, physio and perhaps yoga in winter? Perhaps I am way off base but it just feels a natural fit and could benefit all ages.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with tennis courts is that it limits > the number of people that can use the space at any > one time. Even if fully booked, it doesn't seem > like a good use of the space. Also, do we really > want the noise of tennis balls breaking through > the peace of the Japanese and Sexby Gardens? Completely agree. We all need areas of tranquillity, especially in urban areas, why destroy it?

I was not suggesting this was fantasy simply noting that commuter parking, as in people leaving their cars on roads around the station was given as the main driver for CPZ on streets around the station. People would not be parking for long periods for a school drop off or to use the health centre. The main argument was very much about commuters going to work. Time limited CPZ would have dealt with that, as well as school drop offs for that matter.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wandsworth have sent out the attached letter > > Can't wait to see how Southwark word theirs > 🤔 This seems to be a more reasonable response, especially in regard to emergency services.

One moment you say you feel for people suffering parking displacement as you know what it is like, the next it is ?sour grapes?? Please don?t pretend not to be aware of the widespread effects car owners living close to a station and choosing all day CPZ, will have on the rest of us.

Yes, well you might but it was always argued that commuter parking was the central issue, this could have been dealt with by the time limited option. Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in cars harassing householders and all sorts. The health centre and schools were never mentioned. The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way that was never necessary.

Yes, but the commuter parking issue, arguably an inevitable and entirely forseeable side effect of choosing to live close to a train station, could have been mitigated by time limited CPZ, which could have meant those living by the station would have had a solution and other nearby streets would not have been made to suffer displacement to the same degree. However, this reasonable and even-handed option was rejected.

Agree, poor behaviour but one would think oil on the roads might also discourage cars..odd thing to do.

?There was talk somewhere (might have been Oval LTN but I can't find it now) reporting that vandals had poisoned the plants by pouring oil into them. I mean there's being against the closures but poisoning soil and plants is despicable.? Come on exdulwicher, conflating the two is a bit much to make a point. Do you have hard evidence this was the work of anti- road closure protesters? I could say, I?ve heard of a few cars being keyed locally, it?s all very well being anti car but keying them is despicable.

Has anyone else heard shouting that has gone on, seemingly all night in ED? Hard to know where it is coming from, seems to be from the area between Goose Green and North Cross Road? No music so not a party but raised male voices still going strong at 6am?

Rockets, I agree, shared use is the way to go but admittedly it?s a tough nut to crack. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed > with > > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have > been > > created, I believe we should support them, at > > least for the length of the trial. My personal > > view is that we need to start allocating more > > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > > easier for people to chose those options for > short > > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance > Over > > every street is going to get us nowhere. > > I don't disagree with you that more space needs to > be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but > closing roads to through traffic is not the > solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across > London to dedicate large parts of the road to > bikes and other non-car modes of transport and > there is debate about whether they have increased > the number of journeys being made by bike or on > foot and how effective they have been. > > A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank > discussion on transport links, is the only way > these issues can be dealt with effectively.

redpost, ?Daily Mail reader? such a cheap shot and so unnecessary. If cycling two abreast slows the flow of traffic, which it may well do if someone slow like me is out cycling with a mate, it probably isn?t a good idea. Saying so does not make me or anyone else a petrol head or a Daily Mail reader; it is a view. In similar vein, I had suggested mobility scooters be allowed into cycle lanes but was told by a pro cycle campaigner that this was a bad idea as it would slow down cyclists. He said mobility scooters should go onto pavements or bus lanes!

Quite. Yesterday, young Dad cycling on narrow pavement down LL, one child clinging onto his bike with him, the other on their own bike with him directing. Doesn?t feel quite right.

Indeed, they went the all day route indicating that a remedy for commuter parking was not the central issue, as we kept being told, instead the council probably wanted large scale parking displacement, creating pressure on other roads, leading to more CPZ.