first mate

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?

Why is it then that we do not see many motorbike users (applying the common perception of what a motorbike looks like) regularly riding on pavements and other pedestrianised areas, not shared with cyclists but used by them, nonetheless?

It is a grey area in terms of perception and that is what you are wrestling with. Illegal e-bike users dare to behave exactly like cyclists because they know the perception is that they are e-bike users.

I think it is bad faith to suggest that most would describe the majority of e-bikes, including throttle assisted as anything but "e-bikes". Are you really suggesting that most people looking at say the bog standard food delivery driver that is using an illegal e-bike, would describe that vehicle as a motorbike? Whether you like it or not, most view these as e-bikes, it is a grey area. This is how delivery drivers using those vehicles are confident in driving across all the pedestrian areas no motorbike user would attempt- because they are behaving like cyclists.

Please, if any of the council/CPZ suporters can shed light on what is happening with this CPZ do say.

I have searched and no update on this CPZ. I know local residents in the roads that would be in the proposed CPZ have not been contacted about a consultation or implementation either. It all seems very peculiar.

Reading SE22 magazine today. A piece by Ward councillor and Cabinet Member for Streets, James McAsh. No mention of the MGS CPZ at all, nothing. He asks us all to go and look at the lovely street redesign and planting in MGS North.

It is two days until October, the month the council's own online documents stated would see implementation of the proposed and reduced MGS CPZ, subject to statutory consultation. No sign of any consultation yet?

True but Cllr Charlie Smith and Cllr James McAsh are local councillors representing residents on the same specific roads to be affected by the revised CPZ ( if it goes ahead). James McAsh is also the Cabinet Member in charge of streets across the borough. Presumably, as joint local reps they discuss matters that will affect their Wards? Especially events like consultations? Do you not think it a bit odd then for one of them to disseminate information about local street changes if it is not correct?

I would imagine he is already aware, after all if the council choose to use a freebie magazine to announce things it seems likely they (or their supporters 😉 ) will also dip into threads on here from time to time. The forum is reasonably well-known. I know James McAsh used to post on here when he started, following in James Barber's footsteps, but then he declined to post stating a preference for private emails, so it is also clear that is the council's preferred mode of comms and it keeps a lid on things, I guess. Charlie Smith could clarify on here or perhaps he'll put something into the next issue of SE22?

Really? I hope your generous interpretation of the exact meaning of Councillor Smith's statement about the CPZ is correct. I, for one, will be very pleased. Just a reminder, his article in SE22 magazine opened with: "The Melbourne Grove South Controlled Parking Zone has been agreed". He then goes on to explain that 'due to resident feedback the zone will be smaller than what was originally proposed' and explains what the hours of operation will be. In such a detailed article you'd think he say something like, 'subject to statutory consultation.'

Because a Councillor for the proposed CPZ area announced it was "agreed" and the last I read online it was set for implementation in October. Would a councillor announce a CPZ was agreed before it had gone to statutory consultation? If not, what could be meant by the announcement?

Thanks Mal, yes, we can easily identify Lime bikes and e-bikes, a bit harder to know which are souped up. But this thread is not about 'bike spotting' it is about noticing a rise in the number of cyclists running red lights (and I added the issue about pavement use). Do feel free to start a bike-spotter thread though, or it might sit nicely in your 'joys of cycling' thread 🙂

I think we can all agree, Lime bikes and other brands of hire e-bike are incredibly easy to identify. Food delivery drivers are more likely to use illegal e-bikes but are big for cycling on pavements. Parents cycling with children towed in a trailer may use a range of bicycles but should try to cycle very slowly on non shared use pavements. If more and more people start to cycle with trailers then I think non- shared pavement use will have to stop.

Exactly, and in my experience Lime bike riders are one of the biggest offenders in terms of anti-social non-shared pavement cycling. I have also seen a number of parents on powered bikes ( not sure which category) with little ones in a trailer, behind. I have a certain sympathy with this but if many more start using pavements in this way it could become a problem- also said parents were not going slowly when on the pavement.

I am seeing many more cyclists jumping red lights; it seemed to reduce for a while. Yes, a lot are e-bike users but these are classified as cyclists. Also seeing more of the same cycling on pavements that are not shared use. E-bike riders on pavements is a new thing. Until recently, we could feel reasonably confident that pavements were a safe, traffic free environment with the expectation that powered vehicles were confined to the roads. This distinction is now becoming blurred.

No hint of statutory consultation for the proposed ( or 'agreed) reduced MGS CPZ. Slated for implementation in October. March, what makes you think this will not go ahead without further consultation, as flagged in the online documents (genuine question)?

Is this a popular event? If great demand for this sort of event on such a small space then so be it. It is just with Peckham Common so very close by just wondering why this is considered a preferable venue for this kind of thing?

Fireworks again tonight, Melbourne Grove North LTN area.

Should this thread be in the traffic section?

Perhaps the Melbourne Grove LTN should be renamed as Melbourne Grove skateboard park.

Good find Spartacus. Is the quoted text above a fancy and rather oblique way of saying that it is things like better transport links that account for less car use, not LTNs?

Do skateboards count as 'wheeling'? These youngsters were not travelling they were practising their skills. It just feels a slightly odd mix, commuters in cars, kids going up and down playing on skateboards, commuters on e-bikes, scooters and motorbikes, pedestrians- all on the roads together.

What is the point of saying "those of you that have posted don't like cyclists". It is ridiculous, divisive and simply untrue. Talk about fanning the flames of the culture wars furnace. Many who post stuff that makes you angry Mal are also cyclists. You know it too, which makes what you post even more offensive.

It feels like it might be an extension of the summer water bombing spate. The sad thing is this could really put off some visiting the park. I really hope the council seriously consider putting some of their huge parking surplus to funding a serious and permanent warden and police presence in the park; it is needed.