first mate

Or we just assume that they were driving without 'due care and attention'- either way, without knowing what actually happened any view is speculative and based on assumption.

Well DKHB, if, as a number of you seem to be saying, very few shoppers in cars visit LL, why would the Council feel it necessary to go out of their way to facilitate them by creating lots of new paid for parking slots. It is the Council who said they had to balance the parking needs of shoppers with those of residents. Surely they would not say or do this without it being evidenced...would they?

Why do you think Southwark Council has justified the potential introduction of paid for parking slots on LL and ED residential streets with the rationale that it has to balance the needs of residents with visiting shoppers in cars? Do you think this was a decision based on no evidence at all? Were they lying or making it up? Were they just saying this to allay shopkeeper fears about loss of trade if a CPZ is brought in?

Indeed, yes my mistake 🤣 Weren't the regs reviewed and updated in 2017? So although bicycle lights are a legal requirement, it is a technicality that few really know or care about. It certainly tallies with the suggestion that more people are cycling at night without them.

The new planting areas are slowly filling with rubbish and weeds- not a great look. As I have said before, this is now a great cut through for delivery motorbikes and e-bikes and I would not say all adhere to 20mph or stay off the newly widened pedestrian areas. Cannot imagine what it will be like if and when the massive new student accommodation off Melbourne and the licensed shop go through. Further up towards Melbourne South a widened pavement area is full of bikes of various types and so badly designed that in heavy rain it floods and most cannot be walked through.

Can I just point out how this thread started. The OP was very clear this was about lights and clothing as a combination. The clothing bit was emphasised by other posters as a means to undermine the point. A cyclist without lights and wearing dark clothing (legalities aside) will be a tad more visible if they are wearing a reflective vest. I felt it was revealing that Malumbu indicated it was sort of okay and understandable if a cyclist occasionally forgot their lights and cycled in the dark without them (it was an, we've all been there sort of comment). As I understand it, cyclists are required to have the right sort of lights, at the right height and right lumens (helmet lights do not count) and you must have red rear reflectors on your pedals. Front white reflectors are advisable but not mandatory. Cyclists are required by law to have lights on between sunrise and sunset and if not may be pulled over and fined... I wonder how often that happens?

Blah Blah, great idea- we need a leader and organiser to get this started.

I am trying to think of local examples of pavement widening where I feel my experience as a pedestrian has significantly improved and to be frank cannot think of any. I do not walk to places more than I used or less than I used to. In places where streets are closed to cars, the car traffic has been replaced by e-bike and motorcycle users intermittently whizzing along instead- as a pedestrian you still have to be traffic aware, it is just a different type of traffic. Only these vehicles may also veer on and off pavements at times. On wider pavements there is a much greater chance of what used to be pedestrian only space being taken up by discarded hire bikes or young ones scooting/ cycling with their parents.

No, because the risks are not the same, until and unless pedestrians start to walking or running along roads at night, and some do, in which case wearing reflective vests or similar might be seen as a very sensible and good idea. I think your reference to colours of clothing is a bit spurious, though darker colours will be harder to see. I think though it is pretty easy to wear a reflective vest (easy to roll up and carry). As for lights, depends on the lights, their positioning and also whether constant or flashing. Drivers also have blind spots, and with the best will in the world might be caught out by a cyclist also travelling without due care and attention. Some cyclists, like drivers, do take silly risks. Of course drivers should take care but as road users it makes sense for cyclists to do what they can to ensure their own safety. Lights are mandatory; a reflective vest is not a big ask, especially if the cyclist is otherwise dressed in black. I think Angelina made some fair and valid points and find the seeming drive to undermine those points a bit weird.

But, for the most part, it is a fact that pedestrians largely do not share footpaths with cars (though they are having to more frequently with cyclists). It is cyclists that share road space with cars (there are not that many cycle lanes and anyway, many cyclists are not obliged to stay in them and do not) and are therefore at greater risk. I think your argument of equivalence between pedestrians and cyclists is false and not helpful. Also, not all roads are well lit- anyone that cycles at night knows that.

But, is there a requirement for speed walking? Surely, slower mooching is okay, in parts. Also, you just know that if the pavements are widened, the greater the temptation for cyclists and scooters to use that to get round traffic on the roads, or to ahem 'park' hire bikes, meaning pedestrians gain very little.

But, are there advisories out for pedestrians to wear helmets and reflective gear at night, unless they are night walking along roads without footpaths, in which case it probably makes sense for them to do so. If not, is that because for the most part pedestrians are on pavements and cars on roads, limiting contact between the two, in the city at any rate. On the other hand, cyclists, if using roads (as they mostly should) are closer to other vehicles and therefore at greater risk, especially, if as some do, they take risks and weave in and out of moving traffic. I think wearing reflective gear and probably a helmet ( though I know that is contentious) is a good thing and to be encouraged, not mocked or undermined.

Angelina, I think you have identified a genuine issue and I have noted similar. If cycling, in its various forms, continues to grow then I think safety education will have to somehow be addressed.

But, if that is the only survey available then not unreasonable to quote, surely? I hope Rockets links to it so anyone so minded can read the information and figures for themselves. I am trying to make sense of the Council's recently stated CPZ plans to provide short-term paid for parking bays on residential streets and along LL to facilitate shoppers in cars, thus impeding bus/traffic flow, against Earl's apparent assertion that not many shoppers visit the area in cars.

But, as I said, neither you, Malumbu, Snowy or March commented when I expressed reservations about how the council said it wanted to allay potential LL trader fears about loss of business re a new CPZ, by creating paid for parking along LL. Given now the great enthusiasm from you all to remove LL parking and widen pavements, I do find your silence on the above, earlier in the year, odd.

But then what of the Council's stated plan to balance the needs of residents parking with that of shoppers in cars, stating it would create paid for parking spaces on LL to effect this? At the time, earlier in the summer I said this would affect buses and those of you in favour of the CPZ etc were completely silent on the matter. I am afraid all this does look like a considered tactical approach- get CPZ in and tell people what they want to hear, then a few months later launch the idea of pavement widening and removing parking on the high street.

The other consideration is that users of Lime bikes and similar, plus younger pedal cyclists, probably don't view themselves as 'cyclists' as such and so don't get kitted out or even consider that they need to. I also agree that earlier nights are another factor for the casual or hire bike user more used to cycling in the summer. I don't think I have ever seen a hire bike or scooter user wearing a helmet or reflective gear- presumably that is because the bike is just viewed as a transport tool for short term use and users do not want to be encumbered by any of the safety gear? Before anyone jumps on me for anecdotal evidence and speculation, this is just what I have seen round here, there may be hordes of similar users elsewhere that are kitted out.

But in the very recent ED CPZ consultation The Council made a point that it felt it necessary to balance the needs of residents against those of shoppers in cars and so planned on creating new paid for parking spaces on residential streets off LL as well as on the Lane itself. Why would it make such a central point if only serving a small number of shoppers?

As ever, I think Mal simply delights in provocation, it's the thrill of the chase.

I agree with HeadNun that impartiality is crucial to good, trustworthy journalism and that in this case the BBC fell short of the high standards we expect of them, also that this has led to a situation that puts the BBC in an almost impossible situation and has given fuel to those that want to destroy or control it. That said, I also agree with Sephiroth that there is an even more important issue at stake here that we must not allow to be overshadowed and that the motivation of Trump on that day was not essentially misrepresented. I think it is terrifying that Trump may be capable of muzzling and destroying an institution like the BBC, as at the same time he perpetuates a narrative and furore that aides him as he repeatedly seeks to draw attention away from his own undoubtedly criminal behaviour. I think the BBC has to fight this and only hope that in the process they/we are not bankrupted.

Earl, in my last post I quoted Rockets, it was he who said he hoped the council instead of making widening pavements a priority intervention, would take a more pragmatic approach, like fixing lighting, fixing pavement surfaces. I guess in the above you thought by OP I was referring to the original poster? I meant 'other poster'. I hope that clarifies? Well, if that is the case, why did the Council seek to reassure businesses by saying it would ensure paid for parking spaces for shoppers in cars along Lordship Lane, and additionally create more paid for spaces on residential streets adjacent to Lordship Lane, qualifying this by stating the Council had to balance the needs of shoppers in cars against those of residents?

I don't think that's what was meant, Earl and I also think you know that. The pragmatic approach referred to other street interventions which were identified in the OP.

My goodness, that is a shocking lack of care shown by the Council and individual Councillors. I had thought Cllr Hamvas would fight to preserve and protect Peckham Rye and the park environment. How can we now possibly trust this Council to do this? Cllr Rose, who was the Cabinet Member in charge of all this has a lot to answer for.

@Rockets "I think the removal of car parking spaces would be nothing more than a council CPZ creation programme and I would like to hope a more pragmatic approach is taken". I agree, especially as we know the Council really want to CPZ the whole of Southwark, if they can. Their approach seems so contradictory at times, which of itself does not invite confidence. Their incredible level of concern for the environment in regard to street interventions, looks bizarre when set against what they are quite happy to impose onto Peckham Rye- it makes no sense. In the ED Consultation results document, the Council state that CPZ are being imposed on certain streets to reduce parking pressure but then note that this will likely create parking pressure on adjacent streets...again this makes no sense. In reality the intervention does not solve parking pressure it simply moves the problem to another street.

At the last ED CPZ consultation, there were concerns that any CPZ would negatively impact local shops and their trade by removing parking for shoppers in cars (a point that was raised by businesses in LL, if I remember). The Council response was that there would be more paid for parking on LL to make up for this, as well as paid for spaces on residential streets adjacent to LL. If parking is decreased on LL it is likely to increase on residential side streets, especially where parking is free. I don't think we are anywhere near a tipping point that all those shoppers in cars will suddenly switch to buses or bikes.