first mate

Dulville, I take it, that you see no contradiction between this council pushing LTNs on the basis that they improve the environment and their agenda to monetise swathes of prime, green parkland by putting parks up for hire for use by events organisers, through many weeks in summer? How can an environmentally conscious council possibly greenlight weeks of noise, light and diesel generator pollution, not to mention year on year damage and detritus after each event? Please explain?

I have a very straightforward question. 20 mph zones are meant to be self enforcing. This means there is intermittent or random enforcement, possibly once in a blue moon. On that basis, why can't we have 20mph for all road users. As with City Police, we might have a rare blitz to catch speeders and issue penalties. It won't work for all but it may get others to check their behaviour. What could be the harm?

No, you want to try and catch out as many unwitting drivers as possible before word gets round and signage is improved. It is a must to monetise confusion and ambiguity, while the option is there.

A bit random but I also strongly object to the council playing its 'environment, green and anti pollution' card to justify continued expansion of CPZ and LTN, but continues to press for more and more local parkland to be turned over for environmentally unfriendly events, run by private companies, through some of the best weeks of summer.

Just curious, how do you know that? Are the bays being monitored for driver activity after parking?

We still don't know much about where much of this surplus revenue is going? Have not been able to get a breakdown yet.

I accept that licensing may not be possible, but since City Police are already enforcing certain aspects of law breaking by cyclists and issuing penalties without any licensing, why can we not have random enforcement elsewhere? If enforcement is possible for some aspects of the law, why not for breaking a speed limit? It is also the case that most 20mph zones are meant to be self-enforcing, so why not just apply to all road users, with intermittent monitoring and the possibility of a fine? Not perfect but not impossible.

Does anyone know where the consultation will be held? Last year they decided to have it at Peckham Levels. The year before they did it at the Clockhouse pub, next to Peckham Rye, a much more sensible location and easier for local residents to attend.

You do see dedicated parent and children parking bays in various contexts as well as short term unloading. I must admit though, I have never seen one for "grabbing milk". It reminds me of that infamous urban myth put about by early pro CPZ/LTN folk, where loads of ED residents were allegedly jumping into their cars to drive a few yards to 'grab a latte'.

Agree with this. If not licensing then how do we enforce? if we can enforce then why can't we have speed limits that apply to all? Is it the view that it is simply impossible to enforce any kind of legislation around push and e-bikes?

Prior to the significant influx of e-bikes you may have had a point. E-bikes muddy the waters and it is not always clear when an e-bike is souped up or not. Having the same speed limit for all road users would make things clearer, simpler and in the long term probably safer too. See no reason why e-bikes cannot be licensed.

But, on that very specific point, why would you object to it? What exactly is the issue with limiting cyclists (including e-bikes and scooters) to the same speed limit as cars. Or, to put it another way, why not have the same speed limit for all road users?

Thanks for posting this. It looks as though the proposed footprint of the event is larger than ever before, with fenced off trackway stretching down the Colyton road side, well beyond the metal fence perimeter. The schedule is now set to take up most of May and the first week of June, again one of the most beautiful times of year in the park. They are wanting to add another day, which this year will be a supported 'community' festival. But surely this is to set precedent for adding many more days in future? Be careful what you wish for; the park is up for hire by this council. Do we want it to go the same way as Brockwell, where local residents are in despair at the slow erosion of their park and the annual noise and disruption? Protecting our green, tranquil natural spaces is vital for the lungs of the city, for wildlife and the mental health of our local population.

I cannot see that this includes what parking surplus and within that, Environment Reserve, is spent on?

As well as the above, has anyone else noticed the massive amounts of gum being spat out all over as well as marking pavements? This is not only disgusting as gum will be laced with human germs and saliva but also places a large cleaning cost on already stretched services. Why do humans insist on spitting out gum onto the pavements? Why can't they dispose of it in a bin or take it home?

I was under the impression that a local councillor lives in that street. Presumably then, the council are already aware.

Some are resistant to reality when it contradicts what they want to believe. Over the last few months I have been really surprised by how often I have had to step out of the way of a cyclist or been startled by one whizzing by, too close for comfort, every time on a non cycling pavement. I know that I am not alone in experiencing this. I think it is worth posting as it is a new thing and, without some kind of intervention (I am not quite sure what) I suspect it will happen with greater frequency. As I said, an accident waiting to happen. This does not detract from valid issues with dangerous driving in cars, but at least there are penalties for that, even if inadequate at times. As I also said, it is not because I think cyclists are 'bad' but I suspect many are newish to cycling and as someone else commented, view themselves as pedestrians on wheels and entitled to ride on a footpath as they choose. I also suspect many are not aware it is illegal or do not care, as there are currently few risks of a penalty.

It is a pain, I agree. Worrying times. The idea that these 'gentlemen' have the wellbeing of abuse victims at heart is nauseating.

Sorry Earl, but having cyclists ride on the pavement, too close for comfort at high speed, on regular basis, is uncomfortable and worrying. I am surprised you feel it is all okay and dismiss it so readily while also, more or less, accusing me of lying. I am posting it because the frequency of this behaviour is very new. I think that is worth noting. My view is that we need to find a way to educate and or penalise cyclists doing this. It is an accident waiting to happen. Your approach seems to favour waiting. I do not share it.

Boring comment Earl and I would ask admin to take a look. Are you saying I am lying Earl and making these events up?

Over the last two days I have experienced more cyclists on non shared pavements. In both cases not food deliveries. Quite surprisingly one was a very large cargo bike with a totally empty bay. Both cyclists cut across the pavement at speed, presumably to shave a few seconds of their journey. Both were way too close for comfort and seemed to judge they could make the manoeuvre without hitting me.

Cllr McAsh is the Cabinet Member in charge of this stuff. One email to him with the response shared on here, job done. I get that some would prefer responses are kept private and one on one.

If you get an answer from Cllr McAsh, post it, so we can see.

It would be interesting to learn more about this.

I noticed that. I hoped it was to indicate where to put paving, or similar. We can only hope.