first mate

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?

Really, I have no idea. What about you Snowy? You comfortable with it?

Having discovered that Lime is partly funded by Google Ventures and Uber, is it a good idea to give them the 'freedom' of our streets to the degree Southwark seem to want? I think they are dangling some sweeteners to make the "deal" happen.

I totally agree. The consultations have been clearly in the majority, against.

Even Southwark refer to the Dulwich LTN as not a true LTN, whatever that means. I also do not understand the '5 years later' response. If people are unhappy with changes to road and layout then the time that has elapsed since initial changes were introduced is beside the point.

https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

The broader point is how TJ GP Practice continues to get away with it. They were given an amazing site, you really could not ask for better, but the outfit (GP super practice) that runs it has an extremely poor history, going back many, many years. Which begs the question, how this shower were ever given such a wonderful, prime site in the first place? It is truly appalling and a huge loss to the community.

I do see a fair few younger cyclists, often dressed in dark clothing, no reflective gear, no helmet and no lights.

Any sensible person wants safer, cleaner roads but you don't get that by turning up the thumbscrews as tight as you can on those driving cars, while allowing a massive proliferation of another type of powered transport, almost unhindered with zero checks. The pace of change is too fast and more to do with political box ticking and revenue grabbing than genuine environmental concern, in my view. If the council were so concerned about the environment, just consider for a moment what they are happy to allow to happen with GALA on Peckham Rye. Utter hypocrisy on their part. FWIW I am not and never have been a car lobbyist. As I have said, until I am blue in the face, I cycle more than I drive- but sometimes I need a car; rather like you, Malumbu.

Same old games. There are parking pressures on many roads where Southwark have increased double yellows, ostensibly for safety reasons, but where a very useful (to them) result is also to reduce parking spaces on that road. Then add in roads adjacent or close by CPZ, they will also have reduced parking because they will now be taking those cars that cannot easily park in the CPZ zone. It is laughable that you try to pretend you are not aware of this. I would have so much more respect for the cycle activists on here if they simply admitted, you want rid of as many cars as possible, one way to do that is to create a parking nightmare. At the same time you get to virtue signal and but also help Southwark get loadsa money in parking fees.

Clearly all these issues are to do with children, that has to be the only explanation. Children must also be going round moving carefully parked bikes and scooters, placing them in the middle of pavements and pedestrianised public spaces too. That is pretty damning but not surprising. This is the outfit that Southwark want to gift a slice of each street.

But if Southwark had not manufactured a parking issue in the first place, we would not see so much of this as there would be no need.

I think they will probably have to, at some point. Even so, your somewhat disingenuous response should be called out for what it is. You would dismiss any data collected by those you view as anti cycling, and label it as coming from a place of "anger", as subjective or even a figment of the collective imagination. So no, I'll reject your suggestion, which is not genuine and a further example of your consistent deflection. Council data is what we need.

Ah, yes, it can only be that. People are just randomly going round pushing over properly parked Lime bikes. Pull the other one. Clearly, the current system is not working. Bikes are still being dumped willy nilly, and clearly users are not being fined hundreds of pounds, as you suggest is the case, or we would not have the issue, would we. As we all know, actions speak louder than words. I think Lime are holding out some very tempting carrots to Southwark, so it will be interesting to see the impact on the area, for better or worse, this summer. At more or less empty Dulwich Sq today ( that well known south London social hub) there were some e-bikes and scooters left in the pedestrian area, but the designated parking bays were empty. Perhaps because they are well heeled visitors who can afford the hundreds of pounds in fines that are allegedly heading their way.