malumbu

OK, from my undestanding 1. Storing your car for the best part of 365 days a year on the public highway at no charge could be seen as unfair, particularly to those that don't own cars 2. Paying a relatively small charge compared to the cost of overall ownership will encourage some to decide that they do not need a car and switch to more sustainable means of transport, including walking and cycling which is more healthy and lead to a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants 3. There is poor utility of most cars in London as they are unused for 95% of the time. Switching to Uber, other taxis, car clubs and shared ownership results in much greater utility of vehicles ie a more sustainable return on the energy and materials used to construct and distribute the vehicle. 4, A differential where you pay more for vehicles that are more polluting and/or have a higher carbon footprint will encourage drivers to switch to cleaner more environmentally friendly vehicles, probably involving less energy and materials in their construction. 5. Where there are parking pressures eg from shoppers and commuters CPZs mean that parking on local roads is prioritised for local residents 6. CPZs that charge a higher amount for second and more cars encourage drivers to reduce the number of vehicles. I expect we all know families with two or more cars that take up more that the width of their property. 7. CPZs often come with incentives such as bicycle storage, and charge points 8. Less parked cars could lead to better use of the road such as widening pavements and adding bike lanes. Ultimately there will probably need to be scooter lanes, but this is rather a toxic subject. I'm not sure of the complete details of this scheme, it doesn't particularly affect me, I'm not at the consultation meetings but I would not necessarily oppose a CPZ on my street. Against the above driving is a hard habit to break, there is a sense of entitlement amongst some drivers, for some owning a car is seen as a status symbol (certainly when I was growing up it was seen as something to aspire to). And most focus on their own self interest, ie this will cost me some money (ignoring whole life costs , rather than what benefits CPZs can bring. Interesting article on whole life costs (around £3,500 a year, excluding depreciation) https://www.cuvva.com/how-insurance-works/london-car-ownership-costs-car-sharing Nice infographic from TfL. You can add one or two grand a year for depreciation/leasing.

Well hopefully some have not made their mind up and see wider benefits rather than just self interest

If you do attend try going with an open mind. I spoke at a public event not so long ago, there were a few angry people, but some who understood that things have to change.

There's a lot of talk about long bus journeys. Generally buses are used for short journeys, as there will usually be a faster mode of public transport. When I occasionally got the 185 into Pimlico for work very few of the passengers did more than two or three miles. Whilst it is annoying if you have to change I understand why routes eg 159 Streatham to West Hampstead, were cut in two. Hopefully we all know why the 159 was so famous.

Ask the surgeries. Most dentists I have been to were child friendly. The only one was the school dentist who'd come in a caravan and do lots of unnecessary work, which I now suffer from.

@Penguin It would be good if you could change this pejorative title - you could simply say South Circular roadworks - why does it take so long. I'm not sure if you are still working, but in your profession would you like it if somebody without expertise criticised your work?

Not sure why air quality came into discussion on this thread. There are a few houses on the opposite side of the road closish to the South Circ (they all have longish front gardens). The low level blocks of flats are set a fair way from the roads (LL and Dulwich Common). A few other houses are on the opposite side of the road going towards Forest Hill. It's not a densely populated area. As said, pollutant emissions from motor vehicles have reduced due to tougher standards, for nitrogen oxides particularly since the VW cheating scandal with test procedures now far closer to the real world and can no longer be got round. The Mayor should also be congratulated for extending the ULEZ. People tend to think about the outer boroughs, but previously the boundary was within the North and South Circs so any old vehicle could use these roads. Anyway, just pointing out. Not that material to the Grove Tavern thread. You could have similar concerns about air pollution for any place on the south Circ including parks, and other recreational facilities which can be found along Dulwich common.

Not many people live in the immediate area and it's been polluted for decades - less so now cars are cleaner. Not that it is good to live next to a busy road but anyone buying or renting in the area will be well aware A word of advice - laying into Southwark ie making negative comments will distract from positive suggestions. Me? I'd like the Grove tavern to be a community space and,/or social housing.

Actually there is a case for charging you for parking on your street. Parking costs should also be part and parcel for those who park near stations, work, school etc. Here's a blog discussing it. From a non-political organisation https://centreforlondon.org/blog/parking-policy/ Thanks FM for publicizing this, nobody has contacted me separately but now you have reminded me I will respond to the consultation. I do use Melbourne Grove fairly frequently

Cycling is still very much a niche activity. I'd like it to be the norm for many, but this is not going to happen without massive political change and investment. Even in the Netherlands, where around half of commutes under 5km are by bike, 3/4 of overall journeys are by car, Around 2% (DfT National travel survey) of journeys are by bike in the UK. There are around 250 miles of cycle routes in London compared to over 9000 miles of roads. So, no, were are not going to be forced to cycle. And if we are encouraged to use public transport even more through soft and harder measures that is a good thing.

They built Barry Road, has to be a Roman road

But what did the Romans ever do for us?

A nice thought. I think it is difficult to get bike lanes through green space when there is a parallel road. That's not a Southwark thing.

If they are going fast without pedaling it's illegal. Most of the delivery bikes are illegal. Usually it's a hub drive on the rear wheel. Most legal e bikes have the drive in the crank. Illegal bikes are not difficult to spot, enforcement bodies could do more but making the delivery companies have greater responsibility would be a better way, but would put the cost of your takeaway up. Stopping the illegal kits and modifications is difficult as bikes that are not road legal can be used off road with the land owners permission. Not sure how this affects bridal ways, pathways where bikes are allowed and the like.

Please avoid personal attacks. As March says with legal electrical assisted pedal bikes, the power cuts out before the bike hits 20 mph. There are numerous posts about illegal e bikes, a separate subject. You shouldn't confuse legal with illegal. https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/electric-bike-laws Useful reading, road legal e bikes electric assistance cuts out at 25 mph

Thank you for your heartfelt post, based on your real experience. I'm a technical person who has worked for the last 13 years in sustainable transport, including working with Highways Engineers, and analysts. I've seen good government - both Labour and Tory, in my area but disappointment in Sunak's desperate and futile driver first policy and sadly Starmer's backtracking following the 'who really cares' Uxbridge result. But I am generally sick to the back teeth of people knocking professionals, particularly those like me who are passionate about making the world a better place. It's like football fans always know better than managers Although the worst thing about this thread is the title Ps those parking in bus lanes winds me up, and I recall one car near to sacred Heart on Camberwell New Road that cumulatively added 100s of hours to bus times. I understand that TfL left cars clamped as a deterrent rather than towing them straight away.

Jumpers for goalposts.

I'm more worried about Trump generally, although I understand that he is dismissive of the European cautious attitude to AI. Newsnight had a rare interview with the two Abba boys and showed them a composition by AI based on Abba's songs. Benny said it was nothing like them. I thought otherwise....

Thinking further we have a serious matter about pedestrian safety yet there is a reference to clowns. @Penguin can you change the title please?

What is difficult about being aware of other road users? It should be second nature. You've just argued for more cycling infrastructure if you think it is better segregating cyclists and motor vehicles. I could say that it is difficult cycling when you don't know what a driver is likely to do. Fortunately I can usually anticipate when they don't check their mirror, blind spot, signal and or are on their phone I could say that it is difficult cycling when you don't know what a driver is likely to do. Fortunately I can usually anticipate when they don't check their mirror, blind spot, signal and or are on their phone

This thread has the most annoying title. I learned long ago that if you want to debate you avoid facetious statements. In particular as some may not agree with the original statement. It's the sort of thing Trump would say.

Specific points From my understanding if you challenge a penalty notice you should be allowed to keep the discount if you are unsuccessful I've not challenged one for years (it was Bromley), the outcome was my concerns were reasonable but Bromley had acted within the regs/powers and I was duly allowed to pay at the discounted rate. But is it worth the time/hassle? Particularly as pointed out above you are not in a good position. General comments Fair and proportional. You could argue that this is neither, but you would have to take this up with government Discretion - how much discretion should the enforcement officer have given you? You could complain to Southwark but I'd expect a one liner back. And again to government. There is a general point on resources that most things have been cut back - environmental health, planning, trading standards and highways, so it is difficult to engage with an individuals in government even if you can get contact details. I've gone through LinkedIn and gone high level for example on rogue traders but still not got a response. A few years ago I'd occasionally report builders working outside acceptable hours, tried this recently and found that the team was half the size - even worse if you contact HMRC who were wonderfully helpful in times gone by. That's a fact of life not a complaint. Having said that the TFL Oyster people are great. I believe that fixed penalties are too high in London but best thing to do is avoid them so I am much more cautious than I was maybe twenty years ago when I would have gone off on one. I do have a massive bee on my bonnet about the lack of enforcement after normal hours and it is open season to park on pavements, double yellows and the like. And also that enforcement officers concentrate on the streets with the most return, which is understandable of course, but it pees me off when people park on the zig zags on Forest Hill Road. I once reported a potential crime on Perry Vale, threatening to two police officers doing nothing in a car that I was going to damage cars parked illegally due to an event at the Banqueting House. They told me it was nothing to do with them. Cheers...... I've gone into Lounge territory.

This is a bit disingenuous, firstly this is a forum where we can share opinions and secondly views like mine are often supported by reports and data. There is a lot of reactionary stuff on the transport part of this forum and an awful lot of complaining. At times some of us try to provide some balance.

Not a lot to say in the issue but what makes you so knowledgeable about highways to call professionals clowns? Why not enquire of TfL about the time this is taking. You could offer your professional services.

Penguin: "which makes driving behind them that much more tricky" If you are not able to do this then you are not meeting minimum driving standards. You would fail your driving test, The Highway Code is generally not road user specific, a bike in front of you has priority whatever the speed, noting that slower road users may choose to move into a safe space to allow you to overtake, but are not compelled to. Like in the Scottish Highlands when those towing caravans would let you overtake, not so common nowadays and no doubt many of us have been on a single carriage A road with a massive queue behind a tractor, nervous car driver or car towing a caravan. You should only overtake the bike if there is enough room, which includes giving the bike around a couple of metres. Significantly less than this you could be stopped by a police officer and given a ticket.