first mate

Yes, agreed and for those rare, 7% of crashed/incidents 20mph will help mitigate damage but it will have probably have zero effect on the risk taker/criminal driver.

🤣

Yes, but being caught eventually is not the same argument as 20mph will deter them in the first place, it won't. Those addicted to risk, with zero social conscience, do not tend to adhere to any sort of rules (we only have to look at ol' orange rump across the pond). On that basis, you then have to look at what else is gained and by who- yes, mitigation of damage caused by genuine accidents by normally careful drivers but also more revenue in fines garnered by the council. Most if not all the big car crashes or incidents cited on here point to criminal behaviour that will not be changed by 20mph.

The issue with cyclists is to do with increasing incidents of inappropriate, careless/ dangerous cycling on pavements and other pedestrian priority areas. I have in the past suggested trying to enforce 20 mph for all cyclists more to counteract the grey area of illegal e-bikes that 'pass' as legal. Melbourne Grove LTN is now a great cut through for motorbikes and e-bike delivery drivers- would any of us want our kids playing in the streets with that going on...? I should add that these motorbikes or illegal e-bikes often seem to drive well in excess of 20mph, but that is okay? Not only that they use both road and pedestrian areas and they can also cause serious injuries. In regard to cars, do you really think that 20mph is going to tackle the problem of lunatic borderline criminal behaviour, as is most likely with the Norwood Fountain and the DV central reservation car incident you referred to? Do you think 20 mph will 'solve' the rare but possible case of a driver having a cardiac arrest or similar at the wheel?

I do think Penguin and other posters have a point though. Sometimes signage is poorly placed and hard to read- examples of this have been given, where Southwark had to address the issue of poorly placed signage. It is not always a case of bad driving. Whether poor signage is deliberate or accidental is moot, in my view.

Ťhe problem is that if the culprits are criminals or doing other crazy stuff, they may well be well equipped and used to evading any type of enforcement measures. Let's be honest, speed limits, cameras etc.. are not really going to impact this type of behaviour.

It would be interesting to research new signage, where it is considered difficult to read, and calculate the amount of fines issued against through traffic. If, as asserted, most people manage to drive carefully as well as monitor all signage, without issue, then the amount if fines should be miniscule. On the other hand, if most people are able to drive carefully and abide by speed limits, as Earl says, it begs the question why some of these interventions are needed?

The issue for me is about reducing damage to animals, whether wild or domestic, as well as to those humans that also suffer as a result. The sad thing is that there is a compromise available in the form of low noise fireworks- it is the apparent addiction to imposing loud bangs and other scary sounds that I find so strange.

Don't know why but it seems like there have been impromptu fireworks since early September. At one point I even wondered if there was a shooting range or something like that over Dulwich Hamlet way- the direction where the firework sounds seem to be coming from? Is there some kind of new, fireworks craze going on and where are people getting them, out of season?

Quite a few going off tonight. Diwali is over, or so I thought. Anyone know what the special occasion is?

Fair enough. I do rather agree.

Ditto and without wanting to be the fun police is there really any good reason for displays to be so loud? Isn't the visual aspect entertaining enough? In this age of technology I fail to see why substitutes, like drone light displays, cannot be found - assuming these are actually more environmentally friendly?

You have not addressed the central issue that if cycling is on the rise (including use of e-bikes) then incidences of bad or risky cycling behaviour are also likely to rise. What is being dobe to mitigate this? I am not aware of more cars driving across newly created pedestrian spaces, like Dulwich Sq, or of cars driving down pavements on Lordship Lane, so we need to address cyclists using pedestrian spaces inappropriately as a discrete issue and one that is likely to increase because, as you assert, more people are cycling in London. What do we do about it?

And that is your 'good faith' answer to just tell everyone they are imagining things? If you agree cyclists ( including e-bike riders) are using non-shared pedestrian spaces and also claim that cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London then it is odd you do not agree that bad cycling behaviour of the type described is also very likely to increase (as well as risks). It seems you are heavily in denial mode.

They are also really, really environmentally unfriendly as full of toxins that do not degrade.

Surely this is the point. If cyclists continue to use pedestrian spaces as thoroughfares then perception of risk, if not actual risk, will also increase. I do not think pedestrians and other valid pavement users should have to be worried about cyclists possibly hitting them. Talk to elderly people and you will find that this perception exists and it is stressful for them and unfair. So, with your 'good faith' hat on, how should this growing issue be addressed?

I would thank you for apologising for calling me a liar had you not immediately undermined it by stating you hope my luck improves. What on earth has luck got to do with it!

I relayed multiple incidents of bad cycling I witnessed and you accused me of lying. Now you proclaim that incidents of bad cycling behaviour are well recognised. 🤔

Diwali starts 12th October. Is there any way to predict where and when fireworks will be going off? We also have November 5th, Halloween and then New Year and Chinese New Year. Given the availability of low noise fireworks, does anyone else think it is anti social to let off the noisy kind?

Earl Afelheah said about rising issues with poor/dangerous cycling: "It is worth mentioning that this is well recognised (despite the pretence by people like rockets that somehow it is not), and there are things being done to address it." My goodness, not so long ago you accused me of making up daily examples of bad cycling behaviour I witnessed at Dulwich Sq.

Hmm. I wonder how many 'motorbikes' and 'powered mopeds' daily jump red lights, along with e-bikes and cyclists, of course.

Now, if we were you Earl we would respond with something like ' I commute daily but do not see multiple cars jumping red lights' or comment on your cognitive biases or simply imply you are making the whole thing up.

Oh, crikey Earl, do you think anyone really buys this?

The strange thing is I cannot find one person in the relevant streets who say they are in favour. As for the 'it is only three streets' line, we all know this is just the beginning. Displaced parking is certain, meaning adjacent streets will soon be wanting CPZ too and so the domino effect will continue- resulting in the Council's original aim to CPZ all of ED.

I fear you are right. But, on the online document I read earlier in the year, which now seems to have disappeared, the use of the phrase "subject to statutory consultation was used in such a way as to suggest imposition would only occur after a consultation, indicating further consultation. I don't see how proposed measures can be termed "subject to statutory consultation" if those exact measures have not been consulted on?