Rockets

I suspect the 5 minute grace peruod has reduced the number of tickets they can issue and with CPZs coming they know from other boroughs that they can increase the number of fines significantly. They have probably run the revenue numbers of 2 vs 5 minutes and like what they see. How charitable of them.....;-)

Have you checked when Community can do the install? It took us close to 9 months to get connected by BT after we placed the order. Do you a fibre cable to your property already as most require new cabling from the fibre box on the pavement outside your home.

I bet some people now wish they hadn't started the whole "I think this LTN subject should be lounged/is getting repetitive/is not relevant to ED" pleads to admin......hindsight hey....

Ha ha.....I wondered what sort of reaction I would get when the tactics you have used so often are played back to you...and you didn't disappoint......;-)

It was pretty dangerous to those 5 people killed.....which, as First Mate says, brings us back conveniently to the purpose of the thread....

Is this thread not repetitive to the thread Malumbu started on Road User standards and therefore should be amalgamated into a single thread under admins rules.....sorry couldn't resist.....I appear to have caught a dose of Malumbu lounge police-itis.;-)

Ha ha...where did I ever say that the cyclists were THE problem with danger on our roads....trying to put words into my mouth I see - a tactic oft used by many erstwhile posters on this forum! 😉 Also, your part clipping of quotes to suit your agenda is awfully reminiscent of tactics used by other some posters - hang on, might you be someone posting under a second account name? I am pretty sure you're not that daft as some of the new features of the forum might expose you and such behaviour is banned....... I could spend time trying to explain the concept of deaths per mile travelled and what that means for the cycling numbers you shared (and thanks for sharing that graph and clarifying that this is deaths accounted for by mode as I am shocked as to how high the cycling figures are/were, especially when compared to motorcycles) but you are clearly here for the argument so I will let you try to work it out for yourself...

By miles travelled HGV and vans are by far the highest killers on our roads - although your table may put that into question. Are the stats you quote deaths caused by? Then that 5 for cyclists is not good news for your argument and why people are so concerned about people cycling on paths. Everything else you quote is a motorised vehicle and if motorcycles kill 10 people and cycling 5 then the death per mile travelled stat will likely look very bad for cycling and may actually put it on a par with HGVs and vans. Not trying to be a gatekeeper of anything - just trying to highlight your brazen attempt to throw in a "yeah but..." distraction on a thread about cycling on paths....but thanks for your update because it actually puts into laser focus the need for people to stop cycling on paths.

I think it's only fair that the new thread carries the names of those pro-LTN lobbyists that worked so hard to make this happen! 😉 Perhaps we can create a virtual plaque like the founder's names on the wall of the Picturehouse with a roll of honour! It will be interesting to see how the various threads perform as that is probably a good indicator of how important these issues are in the local community. What was interesting was that many people who have been long-time members of the forum were starting to get involved in the discussion around CPZs so it wasn't just the usual pro-/anti-LTN suspects suggesting much of the content was news-worthy and of interest, which had been cited as a reason for some threads moving.

He probably needed to change from Marxist to socialist to ensure his longevity within his own party such is the purge of the Corbynistas....... This will trickle down to activities like CPZs and LTNs - if Labour thinks people are turning against their local and regional policies they will need to course-correct. In the same way Labour used the national agenda to steer the local council elections we are probably now going to see local issues steering the regional and national election agenda. Khan can't do a U-Turn on ULEZ can he - the fiscal hole he is in would get even deeper if he did surely? Gotta love politics but we are the political football in all of this!

Malumbu, I agree and if everyone who uses the road treated others with courtesy and respect then we would not have a problem.

Mayoral election is in May...........

As I was saying. What happened in Uxbridge last night will likely have trickle-down ramifications for local transport issues here. Sadiq may be worried that his tenure as mayor could come to a grinding halt over Ulez and I do wonder whether there will now be a Labour HQ downwards review of voter sentiment towards the measures the mayor and councils are implementing and the impact that could have on the May elections. Keir should have cleaned-up last night but Uxbridge and ULEZ is skewing the narrative and the blame is being laid at Sadiq's door over ULEZ. Angela Rayner has been saying this morning that "ULEZ is a big issue" which is political speak for "Sadiq, you're causing HQ issues that may have bigger ramifications" but is it too late to delay ULEZ until after the next elections (mayoral and national) or is the damage already done and will the electorate see through that?

You know cyclists have killed people too right? https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-07-14/cyclist-who-rode-on-pavement-jailed-for-fatal-collision-with-pedestrian and let's be honest that's what we are talking about on this thread to prevent that from happening. Do you think HGVs and vans are suitable for suburban streets - they kill more people than any other road user? 8 people were killed by buses last year - are they suitable? Every death is one too many but the way you are using this to try and make a point to distract attention away from the topic is pathetic.

"without doubt will...." "I've already heard from friends..." What was it the pro-LTN lobby said about anecdotal evidence........it seems that some are happy to use it this time round... Trust me if there was a shred of evidence that CPZs reduced car ownership the council would be shouting it from the rooftops and would have plastered it all over the CPZs flyers and I bet you there has been no more pronounced reduction in car ownership figures in boroughs with CPZs than those without (compared to the rate of decline in London as a whole). LTNs were heralded as a means to reduce car ownership yet in Lambeth a 9% increase was seen in car ownership within LTNs since they went in - can anyone explain why that might be?! I would hazard a guess that after the CPZs go in in Dulwich there will be zero reduction in car ownership - but probably more people paving over their front gardens and paying for a drop kerb!

Rollfick, maybe you should stop looking for research from Madrid and take a look a little closer to home....maybe start with Southwark's own Transport Reoort for Dulwich from 2018.... Withi that you will learn that.....The remaining 30%+ is not just huge amounts of driving I am afraid when you factor in cycling and public transport as well into the remainder - car journeys whether as a driver or passenger accounted for 27% of internal trips. Also throw into the mix that Dulwich (in 2018) had the highest level of under 19s and over 65s of any part of the Borough (39% of tne population compared to a borough average of 30%) and both both age ranges always equate to higher car ownership due to mobility issues/demands in both groups then Dulwich was doing very well in terms of active travel. Old people and young people tend to be more reliant on car transport for obvious reasons. The very same report cites that the lower east/west public transport connectivity "is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car". And cars were used for 50% of outbound journeys to neighbouring boroughs and non-neighbouring boroughs (with being a passenger in a car rising from 7% for internal trip to 18% for outbound longer trips). Cycling accounted for 6%, walking 12%, rail 16%, bus and coach 17% and motocyle 1%. So it is clear cars were being kept for longer journeys, many of which were being predicated by poor transport links. So does that make you think people will drop their cars because of CPZs or will they just pay the money and keep the car because their longer journeys are dependent on it? Its pretty much what has happened in other boroughs that brought in CPZs and and many of those boroughs (like Islington) have much better transport links and a different age demographic). Can you find any research from an equivalent London Borough that backs up your assertions? The devil is in the detail and much of it is in that fascinating Dulwich Transport Report - which is haunting our council right now and really is a smoking gun. I do note they have not done one since 2018....one can only speculate as to why....probably because it would further undermine their narrative. A lot of this stuff is so bleedingly obvious when you look at the council's own numbers it's amazing they have tried to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Remind me, what positive impact of CPZs that are "100% worth it" are you referring to? If you have drunk from the council kool-aid hose and believe this is about impacting climate change then, I fear, you are gravely mistaken and being taken for a ride by the council.

JMK - are you sure you're not a competent lawyer as you are are providing some legal lessons to some on here....;-)?

According to the Southwark Dulwich Area Transport 2018 report over 60% of people in Dulwich own a car against a borough-wide figure of 42% owning a car According to the same report: The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. And again in the same report: Walking is the mode of choice (65%) for most trips inside Dulwich and as the first leg of longer journeys (access to station) There is little evidence CPZs do anything to reduce the number of cars on the road During the last democratic consultation on CPZs 68% of East Dulwich respondents said they opposed the CPZ plans. The facility to object to the CPZ has subsequently been removed from the latest consultation It's all in here if you are interested.....https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf There rests the case for the defence m'lud.......

They have never wanted open meetings about anything since the LTNs went in - and that is because they know if they did open-up and engaged properly with constituents they would never get the mandate to do it - they learnt a painful lesson from the 68% of residents who responded are against the CPZs the last time around so they are using every tactic to stifle debate and the democratic process. It must be difficult for Cllr McAsh because he has always been very critical of the Tories for doing exactly the same thing but seems to be happy to take a page from their playbook when it suits his agenda. That's what I hate about politics nowadays - the moral fibre has gone and they are all as snake-like as the others.

Rollflick - how does parking management becoming an effective lever for modal shift when an area that already has at least 68% of local journeys done by foot implements a CPZ? And remember the excuse given for the first CPZ in Dulwich was to supposedly, ahem....allegedly...to tackle the swathes of commuters driving in from Kent to park along Melbourne Grove........doesn't it make you think that the council is trying to grab any excuse for the CPZ and this time it just happens to be a convenient vehicle for a bit of greenwashing - triggering all those passionate about climate change to jump on the CPZ bandwagon? If you believed everything the council told you you would believe that the private car was the number 1 contributor to the climate crisis.

But DuncanW it is a clear distraction strategy designed to take focus away from the increasing problem of bad cycling that no-one in the cycling community seems to want to acknowledge. We hear it all the time on any threads that talk about bad cycling "well cars kill more people than cyclists" - that is not a defence when we are discussing the increasing amount of bad cycling that is endangering pedestrians. People have been killed, or sustained life changing injuries, by bad cycling - that also is a cold, hard and measurable fact. And the more bad cycling there is the more the risk increases and it is now a real problem. Look at this thread - it covers bad cycling and new posters join (always be sceptical of new first time posters on the forum) to use the tragic incident in Wimbledon as some sort of "gotcha" - when clearly they had no clue as to what may have caused that. It's the same tactic as that Dulwich Roads twitter account that tries to blame every accident on speeding when often no speeding was involved - trying desperately to use the misfortune of others to further their personal agenda. The source for my comment of more likely to be hit by a bike than car is based on nothing more than personal experience, and I suspect the personal experience of anyone who actually wanders around Dulwich. You cannot tell me you have walked around Dulwich without having some sort of close encounter with a badly ridden bike? Of course you know there are "dweebs" who also cycle around filming indiscretions of drivers, purposely and gleefully taking some sadistic pleasure in getting them fined - some of the most prominent cycle campaigners like Jeremy Vine retweet the videos heralding the victories of their toils? The "dweeb" who posts the bad cycling is clearly a cyclist who is sick of the way other cyclists are riding - he posts a similar video every couple of weeks and in them it is often the same people over and over again (especially at the Dulwich library junction) so these aren't one-off indiscretions. I suppose what would be refreshing if one, just one, of the cycle lobby who post here could agree there is a problem in the Dulwich area right now with bad cycling - but no, it never happens and never will happen, because like so many things about the pro-active travel groups they are more than happy to turn a blind eye to their own group's indiscretions and dismiss it.

Malumbu - I pride myself on being both a courteous and thoughtful cyclist and driver and I just wish everyone else took the same approach. The whole cars kill more people than bikes narrative is just a distraction technique - no-one wants to be hit by a car or a cyclist and if you wander around Dulwich you are far more likely to be hit by a bike than a car nowadays. Vans and HGVs are, by far (according to PACTS), the most dangerous mode of transport per mile travelled to other road users but no-one seems to focus too much on that do they?

I suspect that is because there is zero proof that CPZs have any influence on the items stated by Rofflick within the Mayor's Transport Strategy. If the council claimed they do then it would open them up to action - the Mayor and councils are playing the "we were told to do it game" with no-one actually taking responsibility for the decision. Remember CPZs have been around in many London boroughs for a long time and I am not aware of any evidence they actually reduce the number of cars owned within the area. It's worth nothing that Aldred's research in Lambeth showed that, when it came to LTNs, car ownership had actually increased by 9% within the LTN area since implementation. If you look at Islington's CPZ website it doesn't try to use them to greenwash their like Southwark do: https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions/controlled-parking-zones Their stated benefits of CPZs are (and the discouraging vehicles from driving through the borough is tenuous at least in terms of it's measurable benefit to climate change): easier for residents to park near their homes improved safety, with better visibility at junctions easier access for emergency services, delivery and removal vans reduced traffic and pollution by discouraging vehicles from driving through the borough.

And I think that is the problem - the council are doing everything in their power to stop open forums. They did it in the first round of CPZ meetings years ago - remember the Dulwich Library (too many people in the room debacle)? They seem to have gone out of their way to under-publicise the public meetings - not sure why it isn't flagged on the documentation delivered to everyone on the consultation - that should be a legal requirement in my mind. It seems the council were caught off-guard because they thought they had done enough to bury information on the meetings yet someone found it and used social media to ensure a few people knew about it. I would encourage anyone, on either side of the debate, to attend the remaining meetings and force the council to engage in a democratic and fair way - given their experience at the first two I am sure they will put plans in place to try to mitigate the risk of them losing control of the narrative - as has seemed to have happened at the first two. And to those who only go to shout and throw ludicrous insults at the councillors don't because it isn't helping the cause...when these councillors feel they are losing the argument they tend to retrench behind claims of "vicious personal attacks" and try to use it to shift the narrative tends to be their go-to on social media in such situations (remember the Cllr Newens anti-LTN sign left outside her house #solidaritycomrade social media thread?).