Rockets

Yes a lot of local campaign groups have joined forces to lobby government: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anti-ltn-campaigners-lobby-government-b1204631.html That'll annoy the usual suspects no doubt....;-) A couple of snippets from the article all of which seem perfectly reasonable and pragmatic: Fifteen community groups have sent a letter to the transport secretary Heidi Alexander arguing that LTN schemes often “do not have the backing of local people”. The letter also called for the government to introduce “a strict regulatory framework” for new and existing LTN schemes to make sure that they cannot introduce schemes which do not have community support.

No what you presented was your opinion and interpretation of the accident stats and you referred to them as "frequent" or something similar. I challenged you on the use of "frequent". But I am not going get into a debate with you for fear you'll call me a nasty name......;-)

I had a look earlier and those can't be the only signage they are putting in surely? Two tiny signs well out of eye sight and natural eye-line if you are driving and then no other signage for the length of the road and no bays marked out. Surely not? There must be something else planned? If that's it then I defy anyone to try and defend the council on this rollout and not agree that this has been designed to catch people out. Loads of cars have been plastered with PCNs and are those warning letters or PCNs that trigger warning letters in the first few weeks? Regardless, a lot of people get very upset getting parking tickets and repeatedly putting tickets on the same car day after day seems ludicrous and could cause someone returning to their car a lot of distress, especially as if they are not parked adjacent to the two tiny signs (and thinking oh did I check the sign way above eye-line on the pole) they would have no idea they are in a CPZ. Ha ha, that already sounds like the council trying to find someone else to blame for the "oversights". Ultimately someone from the council has to sign this off and they have to accept responsibility if anything goes wrong (they won't of course).

No I am taking the mick out of the Guardian's conclusions that the famous Herne Hill school Dulwich College is the sole reason for an increase of pollution on Croxted Road......

Are those signs (that have now been amended) the only signs notifying people that they are entering a CPZ? I saw the one at DV end above the beacon for the crossing and could not see any others.

Yes the council revenue-generation, sorry, enforcement teams are circling every day now.

Earl, I am not going to rehash that argument with you but my position was very clear on why I challenged you on how "frequent" these collisions were given the number of vehicular journeys made over a course of the year. That's not minimising anything - it's trying to establish some facts instead of opinion. Probably because the council haven't yet realised what a revenue-generating opportunity this is....I am sure they will realise it soon! Put a few PCN teams at a few strategic points and the cyclist cash registers would soon start ringing!! 😉

Yes boo/hiss...how dare that famous Herne Hill school Dulwich College be the sole cause of increased pollution on Croxted Road......;-)

As someone who has spent time running training courses for cycling do you think there needs to be more focus on educating cyclists - is this a lack of road sense issue?

So then can we presume that there is a growing problem which is why the City of London Police regularly deploy officers to enforce the rule? Some on here would try to convince you there is no problem and that this is all part of a culture war, maybe the police are part of it too....

No I didn't. I merely challenged you on your assertion that these accidents were frequent (or whatever term you used) - that's not me minimising crash data but challenging you on your maximising of it. Thank you - that was completely uncalled for and clearly against forum rules - but I may change my user name to Despicable Individual as a result...or at least get a T-Shirt made...;-) And I agree that it's impossible to do - but then, how do we manage the challenge of bad and dangerous cycling? More police doing stops like they do in the City?

Clearly schools contribute massively to the problem but it is actually amazing that the Guardian editor/legal team let this story go to print and finger Dulwich College specifically in the way they have. Also, which private schools do those 6,000 pupils go to in Herne Hill exactly...I think the journalist might be a bit confused where the schools are....

Leaving this here with no comment....

I think this is what Earl would refer to as a "minor issue". And the problem with e-bikes is that anyone can go out and buy a kit that takes a bike way above 250W (some are advertised as being able to do 60mph for "off-road") - police are trying to clamp down as it is a growing problem but these bikes pose both a threat to pedestrians and the riders themselves.

But this thread is about the problems posed by cyclists is it not? Maybe set up a thread about cars as you seem to have a pavlovian response where anytime anyone talks about cyclists you scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! - maybe use that as the title of your car thread on the forum! 😉

Low level nuisance behaviour...at what point does it not considered low level nuisance behaviour...when they hit someone? You're minimising this as much as those you accuse of doing so with cars (which I hasten to add no-one is doing). You seem determined not to admit there is a problem, which is very much part of the problem and why so many people get frustrated with the pro-cycle lobby - a selfish blinkerdness that does the cause no good at all.

Because someone managed to get the old one locked! If you look at the figure pre-Covid the picture looks even worse for the council...... Here is the data:

But to be fair, could some also be accused of maximising the negative impact of cars? The go-to position of many in the cycle lobby is "well the problem with cyclists is not as bad as the problem with cars". It's almost as if they don't want to acknowledge any sort of issue. I think the challenge is that many pedestrians in the Dulwich area are feeling increasingly put at risk by cyclists and bad cycling and we cannot silence their voice because..well...cars are worse and it doesn't suit our narrative. The only way we will ever see Vision Zero is if everyone acknowledges where there are problems and does something about it.

I know this was when the Tories were desperately trying to stoke the fires but I thought this was interesting: However, enforcement should be undertaken proportionately and not used as a means to raise revenue. Can anyone provide any evidence to counter the claim that Southwark are abusing the powers afforded to them as they are doing it as a means to raise revenue? Penguin68 I am with you...clearly Southwark has determine that PCNs can pay for their vanity projects so need to find locations to place cameras that can earn the most revenue, not where the need is greatest from a safety perspective. All over the borough the council is installing cameras with the sole purpose of generating revenue. The Lower Road bus lane camera was illegally fining drivers because of an admin " oversight" and was Southwark's biggest earning camera raking in £500,000 in one year. Not only that but the signage was incorrect for the bus lane too. One wonders how no-one from the council ever bothered checking. Shocking.

Sue, firstly, no need to be rude - it's against forum rules and we have enough council supporters who will demonise anyone who dares challenge how they act. But, given the original discussion on this thread, given the huge increase in the number of PCNs issued (which has come about as the council puts more cameras in like the one on Lordship Lane at Overhill) and given we have established that the council can raise revenue from these fines to spend on vanity projects like the Dulwich Square project you can see why they are incentivised to place as many traps as possible. Even better if signage is poorly placed, obscured or the measures are policed in an overhand way (all real examples of which you can read about here) to ensure maximum revenue generation from them. Look at the council's keenness to roll out CPZs against the wishes of their constituents. Why? Revenue. Revenue to waste on projects like Dulwich Square. So whilst you think you're ever so funny suggesting I do a course in logic it appears I already did and passed with flying colours because it is more than clear what is happening here. But I am more than happy for you to provide your evidence to counter my position.....

Malumbu, what point are you trying to make exactly? I have said the council is setting traps to generate revenue from PCNs - which the data clearly supports. Look at the council's data - what's the direction of travel? Are the total numbers of PCNs being issued going up or down...and how do the numbers of PCNs issued now compare to back in 2020....? I am still perplexed as to why you are such a Southwark council apologist and fan boi...they're not even your council. ;-)

If it's an error who is signing this stuff off....didn't the Townley one have a timing error on it too when they first went in with the bus gate?

Excellent news!

Ha ha, an FOI...that seems a lot of effort to get an answer to a simple question or are you suggesting that's the only way to get info from Southwark....? Those PCN numbers come from the council themselves...none of that needs interpretation....it speaks volumes.

Sorry to hear this - I hope they get the power back on soon for those affected on a night like tonight.