first mate

I disagree. As Spartacus says, this will displace parking to the other side of Lordship Lane, and they'll be next. The idea that CPZ is going to increase parking for shoppers is just nonsense and you know it. And how slippery of you to seem to support this fabricated positive. Aren't you generally against shoppers using their cars to shop? How hypocritical to laud them for excluding Lordship Lane itself from the proposed new CPZ zone, when the very next moment you'll be bleating about parked cars blocking the buses. Suddenly you are interested in 'balancing' the needs of shoppers and visitors who travel to the area by car, but the first lot of CPZ were shoehorned in on the basis that 'evil' visitors who did not live in the area, as well as commuters, were parking their cars and 'pressuring' and 'harassing' locals for spaces. Now you want them all back? I suppose next we'll hear it is important to 'balance' the needs of those who need to jump in the car and shop for a latte.

CPR, glad to have warned you. It is a disgrace the questionnaire is so obviously loaded in this way. When the results of the consultation are shared it will be presented as percentages that want CPZ for 3 hours, or all day, or whatever other options they give, however it will be spun to look as though the majority is in favour of some kind of controlled parking; given there is no option in to say "nil hours, I do not want CPZ". So those not wanting any CPZ will not be represented in that breakdown. That is how you skew results. The other way to skew things is to open a very local consultation up to lobby and activist groups. Note, Malumbu and his cycling activist chums will be scuttling down to vote in favour- even though he and his mates often maintain that consultations do not mean anything, yet they are happy to make the journey ( he is not a local) to cast their vote. On that basis, because we now know how the process is gamed, I am hoping anyone who reads One Dulwich updates, from anywhere in London, also gets involved in this consultation. People can access online information here: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

Various groups, like LCC, will be encouraging members far and wide to support CPZ in this area and to actively get in on the consultation, so it is vital if residents are unhappy with this latest move that they get involved and object. I will check, but I thought that unless you answer all the questions your response is discounted?

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis. We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

I beg to differ. To those in the know, they may be easy to spot, but to the general public, as well as types of enforcement personnel, I do not think they are easy to spot. The whole area is a muddle and In think, in part, we are not seeing much enforcement, because it is not clear.

Great point Moovart. I doubt it as in the game of Council CPZ chess, they have learned to divide and rule, taking areas in segments to create parking pressure on the next and then they do another consultation in that new area. if they make the area too big, as they did in one of the early consultations they get a resounding response not in favour, not what they want at all. They have learned how to game the consultation process and the questionnaires to advantage, to get what they want. Note when Dulwich Village was consulted there was an overwhelming majority of hundreds of respondents against, but CPZ was forced through anyway. For the East Dulwich consultation, this has been kicked off by just 16 complaints asking for CPZ, and we have no idea if they even live in the area. Isn't that interesting? The council will use every trick to get ED CPZ forced through, but just remember that Cllr McAsh, in charge of all this, as well as a local councillor, is on the record promising no road that did not want CPZ would be made to have it. There is also no mandate for CPZ.

The problem is, you never offer solutions, but simply get picky on legal terms or other deflections, rather than admitting an issue. It is a fact, that pedalled and powered two wheeled vehicles are between them, daily exceeding 20 mph speed limits, jumping red lights, cycling on pavements and pedestrianised areas, not stopping at pedestrian crossing. In the eyes of the public, anything on two wheels that looks like a bicycle is a bicycle. For the vehicle users, many also view themselves as outside the law and that confusion is down to an unhelpfully grey area where bicycles that look very similar to the eye are treated differently in law. This is why a blanket speed limit would be helpful and we might get a bit more enforcement on the other areas.

Weasle words in intro too: "if implemented the proposed CPZ, could help reduce parking pressure" that is could not will. Meetings at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church: Thurs 27 Feb 6-8pm Sat 1 March 10am-4pm Thurs 6 March 6-8pm See more and to respond go to: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

I understand this has gone out and Cllr McAsh has another large slice of East Dulwich in his sights. Apparently the consultation wording uses the same old tricks and under the 'what if' questions for preferred times for a scheme 'if' there is one there is no option to say you do not want any times at all, as you do not want a CPZ. So we can imagine how the results and stats will be spun. Apparently the document states that over the whole area which includes multiple streets off the full length of Melbourne Grove the council have had 16 requests for a CPZ, which they say is unusually high. That is a relatively tiny amount of requests against the hundreds that voted against in the Dulwich Village CPZ. Does anyone else remember McAsh promising that no street that did not want a CPZ would be forced to have one? I hope people take a stand. There are 3 meetings at the United Reformed Church on East Dulwich Grove.

No comment, I see, on the video posted above, showing cyclists breaking the law and cycling recklessly.

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face. Which posters have said they don't want any enforcement against cars that break the law, but do want enforcement against bicycles? Who has said they only want speed limits for pedal bikes? Perhaps you were just insinuating all that for comedic value too?

But you do not have to consistently maintain a speed over 20mph for it to be a risk factor, do you? Being hit by a fast moving vehicle may cause significant damage. Presumably speed limits are applied to try to reduce risk.

Or try to listen and take into account the views and experiences of others, even if they do not accord with your own.

Not if cyclists whizz through them, as many seem to do. Similarly, the widened pavements will only be a win for pedestrians if cyclists stay off them...let's wait and see.

In your view Malumbu. It is your perception and bias as a cycling activist, that anyone that disagrees with you must hate cyclists or be angry. Some of us would like to see cyclists adhere to speed limits, not jump red lights, and want them to stop cycling in pedestrian only areas, including paths.

And that photo flies in the face of any claim our council makes to being green and a environmentally aware- it is all empty rhetoric on their part and deeply cynical.

Take note how daring to voice disagreement with traffic and road measures in your local area on a local forum is reframed as a "relentless anti council agenda".

I just do not understand why cyclists would want to exceed designated speed limits.

I am sure many of us find this appalling. I support fining speeding drivers and much stronger penalties for repeat offenders and abhor this sort of behaviour. So there you go, Earl. Probably not the response you expected.

Your consistent attempts to conflate those who disagree with your views on local traffic changes with far right political groups is risible. It is clear what you are trying to do and does you no favours. Posters on here who happen to agree with views on local traffic and road layout changes as expressed by One Dulwich, are fed up locals who know the council is not interested in their views. Something that has been demonstrated again and again when the council has proceeded with its preferred agenda, without mandate, rejecting consultation results. It is the Council, not One Dulwich, that has the power. It is the Council that in this issue is treating locals with contempt.

This is the point. We can see the effects of the erosion of democracy elsewhere in the world right now; it is disturbing to see a Labour council turn a blind eye to what a consulted majority think and instead impose the agenda it wants. The council had no mandate to make these local changes, but it has gamed the system to make them anyway.

It is the pro crowd that frequently frame anyone that does not agree with them as 'raging', 'angry', 'hating' and less recently, as having mental health issues. I am even beginning to wonder if use of these descriptors is something that is suggested in an LCC 'how to quash debate' primer?

Agreed, and councillors have the power to do stuff. Infiltration of The Dulwich Society transport sub-committee by individuals with an agenda to get expensive changes to local junctions, against the will of many locals, is far more significant.

According to some, it will have been children wot did it. As we head towards warmer weather and fair weather cyclists start to increase, I think we will see many more hire bikes blocking access on pavements.

Wondering about impact of Gala on all this too?