first mate

Do you mean exercised or exorcised? Are you trying to say that Rockets is overly agitated or something like that? I don't think we should ascribe emotional states to others simply on the basis they disagree with us? I think given a number of current consultations, Rockets is possibly examining potential flaws in how data is gathered and analysed. This seems a reasonable thing to and there is nothing in his posts that indicates anger or agitation that I can see.

Well, I think you must be right otherwise someone would have by now posted the link to the documents you asked for and which, according to them, they had googled and checked in a few minutes.

Why do you keep saying Rockets is angry?

What does that mean?

I was not involved in this from the outset, so had not researched and I certainly made no "judgement". I just expressed an interest in knowing whether a bike lane had been mooted or not, and given March seems to have that evidence I thought they would share it. Why would you not?

Earl, as I said, I have stated my thoughts on the Peckham Gyratory, thus far. As far as I am concerned I have clarified. It is of course your choice to accept that, or not.

Nothing coy going on, I have stated my position and my thoughts.

The simplest thing would be to share that material. To not share it seems odd if it would settle the question of whether or not a cycle lane was mooted. What is there to gain by not sharing?

You can be in favour of something in principle, hypothetically, in an ideal world. In this instance, some of us also have reservations.

To add, I very much doubt that a collision between a pedestrian and say an e-bike in a pedestrian area would be recorded or reported. Stand to be corrected though.

Earl, the way you choose to interpret my comments is totally down to you, but is not evidence of my motivation for making those comments. I have already said I have reservations about pavement widening plans and have given reasons why.

March, you always seem to be across the detail of council plans and immediately stated there were no plans for a cycle lane, so presumably you have access to that detail you can share? This may be down to your superior internet research skills but please share with us?

@Earl Aelfheah I am expressing doubts, that is not the same as making an outright statement against something. However, I would appreciate you quoting me accurately in future. As your assembly of my statements on the proposed Gyratory changes show, I have not said "I don't want pavements wider" for pedestrians. Those are your words and yours only and are highly misleading. We can all agree that cyclists and motorcyclists on single-use pedestrian areas are a bad thing, but there seems little will to do anything about it. It may require more creative thinking. Having witnessed recent cycling behaviour round Dulwich Square I can only echo P68's thoughts that while it may not seem much of an issue now, if use of bikes, and e-bikes in particular, increases, it may well become one in the not too distant future.

P68, well said and we must not forget that perception of being unsafe while using the pavement is a negative factor for some elderly and vulnerable. A cyclist swerving to avoid a pedestrian may cause no material damage, but it can affect wellbeing and confidence.

But Earl, please show where I said, " I do not want widened pavements" in the Peckham Gyratory? I merely pointed out that it is not necessarily the improvement for pedestrians you claim it is. It may be, that is if it is not used as a cut through by cyclists and motorcyclists- something we do see in other recently pedestrianised areas. As an aside, please do not state that I have "obsessions" as I believe that is offensive and derogatory. Let's keep things civil. I am sure admin will agree.

You can give an address, as the roads within the consultation are listed along with a category that says "other". However, as you say, people can tick one of the named roads, even if they do not live in one and there is no way of knowing. Also, the 'other' category allows equal weight to be given to the response of someone that lives a mile away and visits the area (perhaps cycling in) and someone who lives on a street close by or adjacent to the consultation area, who will be directly affected by displaced parking. The over- arching question is how the council has given an undertaking that CPZ will only be imposed if streets want it? How can they know?

Geh, please share more as and when you get it. This is an example of misinformation being given out to residents at the 'consultation' meetings. Another poster was told at one of the meetings that streets that do not want CPZ will not be made to have it. It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians.

On 07/02/2025 at 09:33, Earl Aelfheah said: For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI Data is separated out according to vehicle or pedestrian. I need to look out how data is sourced and whether that might involve collisions on paved or pedestrian areas. That aside, there is a category for pedal cycles and for motorcycles. Which category do e-bikes fall under? I assume illegal e-bikes go under motorcycles and other e-bikes under pedal bikes?

Posted in wrong thread.

I can confirm I am not involved with or affiliated to any of those groups mentioned.

Precisely, and they have already built and still we have below average interest in cycling in the borough. Having listened to a Southwark Scrutiny session looking at the cycling issue, it seems there are significant barriers to uptake which building more and more infrastructure will not address or shift.

Ah, okay LOL. I thought it was a bit brusque.

Snowy, you seem to know quite a lot about this stuff. Can you shed any light on how the consultation results are collated? How do we know if someone calling for CPZ in their street (by answering 'yes' to that mandatory question, "do you want CPZ on your street") actually lives directly inside or on a street adjacent to, the consultation area?

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure.