Earl Aelfheah

This is such a silly comment. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make", but simply pointed out that claiming a CPZ will destroy the high street is not really the best one to lead with. It's hyperbole and no one seriously believes it. One step away from 'will no one think of the children!?!?'

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it?

Ok. So just to be clear... you think that Southwark Council and Tfl have worked closely to 'not go the extra mile' because... they hate drivers? Or is your complaint just that the work is taking too long. Because the two are quite different and it feels like there is back pedalling going on.

It's always the innuendo. have the power of your convictions. Do you believe that ULEZ has improved air quality, or not? Would you reverse it, or are you broadly supportive of it? You have spoken about it a lot (and in terms most would consider to be critical) for someone who claims not to have a position.

You believe that tfl are conspiring with the council to deliberately prolong the work because (in Rockets words) they 'hate drivers'? Is this your position? The idea that the work is deliberately being slowed down to try and annoy drivers is literally ridiculous. It's conspiracy theory nonsense.

Perhaps not, but certainly they're implying that the works are being deliberately drawn out in order to cause disruption because they 'hate drivers'. If you believe this, then you really are lost down a rabbit hole. ...and the works are being undertaken by tfl I believe What are you talking about? The changes made on Sydenham Hill were very clearly intended to address a speeding and accident hotspot. As Snowy has said, Sydenham hill is a traffic calming plan with a cycle lane as an added benefit, not a cycle lane with traffic calming benefits. This is not a conspiracy. There were regular, high speed crashes along that stretch of road in the past.

There are local elections. I mention it, because it's on the top of the poster that was shared: As I said: "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does." So I'm 'focussed on' (responding to) this point, because it's the one I specifically disagree with. Ultimately, I don't live on those roads and can't say what residents might want (although I know they're pretty chocka).

So what is your actual point? Do you think the ULEZ hasn't been successful, or are you just unhappy that a short press release from an external relations department has chosen to put the most positive spin it can on what are by any measure, significant improvements in air quality since 2019? If your issue is with the way external relations departments write press releases, we're probably all with you, but this isn't really an issue with the ULEZ, which is clearly a success story.

This is so boring. So anyone who doesn't oppose any new pedestrian crossing is an 'activist'? Come on. The Council may be regularly incompetent, but this crossing is not a secret ruse to cause unnecessary disruption.

Like I say, I don't feel strongly either way on this. But I think the idea that a CPZ on Melbourne Grove will destroy the high street is absolute fantasy. I wish people would just make the argument and not resort to such hyperbole. If you genuinely need a vehicle to get to work, then parking permits probably help. It's not easy to park at the moment.

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really? BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may help those who really need to travel to their place of work by car, to actually park (although I suspect the vast majority use public transport).

If you don't want a CPZ in Melbourne Grove then say so. But don't claim it's going to lead to the high street collapsing. There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does.

Think that's your own spin. They've described the improvement in air quality since 2019. The report states (not surprisingly) that you cannot directly attribute all of these improvements to the ULEZ, "however schemes and policies such as the ULEZ contribute towards accelerating these improvements". It then goes on to describe the likely impact of ULEZ, based on modelling (which is really the best you can do in comparing the current state to an alternative, potential state). The point is (as discussed above) that a whole raft of interventions by the Mayor's office have seen air quality across London improve. ULEZ is one of those and in so far as it has contributed to what amounts to a better environment for all Londoners, should be welcomed. If you think the ULEZ has not been successful, or should be reversed, just say so. Otherwise, what really are you objecting to? Do you really expect a short press release from a external relations department to downplay a success? What would you like it to say? "We've done loads to improve air quality, and air quality has improved. But perhaps it's just a really big coincidence. We certainly wouldn't want to take any credit."

But this isn't anything to do with the square. It was the same distance before the filters were put in. I'm not saying it's not an issue, but what's the link with the LTN? There is also parking directly outside the chemist, as there was before. Do you know why the council has refused to put a disabled parking bay on court lane? Seems very odd.

How is a CPZ a 'threat to our wonderful high street'? I don't feel very strongly on this CPZ either way, but this seems like a hyperbolic and completely unevidenced claim.

What's the issue you're objecting to? No disabled parking has been removed. To travel from the end of court lane to the disabled bay on calton avenue is 0.2 miles (less than one minute) via Dekker road. Previously one had to turn through the junction, which was roughly the same distance but also heavily congested. I would wager it's quicker now. Plus the pavements are considerably wider / there is more room in front of the shops and the number of pedestrians being injured in collisions with all vehicles has reduced. If you want additional disabled bays, ask for them.

This insistence that there is a huge danger to people walking on the pavement posed by cyclists just isn't born out in the data. There is however, a significant risk of being injured or killed by a motor vehicle. Your previous suggestion that there is no point widening pavements or improving road crossings because of dangerous cyclists is just ridiculous. You've railed against cyclists over many, many threads. We get it. But this is not a reason to lobby against improvements to pedestrian areas as well. Unless you're arguing that we should only invest in car infrastructure / schemes encourage more motor vehicles? We can't all drive everywhere. Some of us want to be able to walk or cycle in reasonable comfort and safety.

There was never disabled parking on court lane (although agree it would be good to have some put in - perhaps write to the council?). There is disabled parking outside the shops. The only change is that you can't drive through the junction - which applies equally to everyone. There is a lot more room now if you're disabled or in a wheel chair to actually navigate around the shops. I do not get this point about there not being clarity about right of way between bikes and pedestrians. The is a road is now filtered to remove motor cars, is narrower (making it easier to cross) and has been curved round to slow the remaining vehicles; but there is still clear separation between the road and the pavement / pedestrian area.

Hard to shop if you can't walk or wheel? How? There is disabled parking right outside the shops. I defy anyone to say look at those before and after shots and say that it's not a nicer space now for pedestrians. Whether you'd rather prioritise people driving through is another matter, but for pedestrians, it's objectively a better space.

Many of us manage to navigate the streets perfectly well without inadvertently driving through bus gates, in bus lanes etc. I don't think there is any great conspiracy by the council to trick people. That said, I agree with the points about signage in this case. If you do too, respond to the consultation and raise it? Generally, I think these proposals look decent. They make is safer for cyclists, quicker for buses, give more space to pedestrians and make it easier to cross the road. And the idea that there is no point in new pedestrian crossings, or widened pavements because of cyclists, is just silly.

Then why do you think that directing this small amount of traffic up the west side would cause tailbacks all the way to where the road splits and beyond? If heading south along the west side of the rye there is a very small diversion turning right and going round, instead of left and straight on. If travelling north it makes no difference. If travelling east you’d go via Nunhead lane as now. It’s a tiny difference, to a small number of private journeys, in order to speed up buses carrying a far greater number of people How is this altered by these changes? You don’t say and I don’t see it.

I don't think anyone is claiming that ULEZ is the only reason that air quality is improving. But it's clear that it's contributing. It has removed a lot of the highest polluting vehicles off our streets. Which I think is something everyone should welcome personally.

We've already established that is not a simple solution, because bicycles don't have speedometers, don't have number plates, and generally aren't registered. To make this change would require primary legislation and without the aforementioned mechanisms to effectively enforce the new law, it would be very unlikely to pass even the early stages of parliamentary scrutiny; Neither would it with them, as they would be disproportionate and counter productive. In short, it is definitely isn't going to happen. Despite the perception of some that push bikes travelling over 20mph is a significant issue, in reality it is not and our law-making processes assess evidence, and consider the unintended consequences, costs vs benefits and proportionality of imposing new regulations. ....and just a reminder that (according to the DfT) 85% of car drivers drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. A much, much bigger problem. Tackling this would be a far better use of resources.

It's pretty clear that the ULEZ has improved air quality in London. Like you say, the idea that it's about revenue generation doesn't stack up (it's cost a lot to implement and the revenues will recede with time). The usual suspects, who vehemently oppose anything that seeks to limit or mitigate the negative impacts of motor vehicles, will not be happy whatever the data shows, or how you present it. But it's pretty clear that the ULEZ has been a success.

Looking at the link @hfoster posted above I think it is a matter of law, but obviously most people wouldn't see as any kind of issue for kids under 12 months. Once some busybody makes a complaint though, the cinema probably have little choice but to apply the strict letter of the law.