first mate

I guess they could also add a few much longer ones, so coaches could use them?

The Council have a Cabinet Member for Streets (James McAsh) one of his stated aims is to improve streets by reducing car use- indicating this is a process that is funded somehow? CPZ, extending double yellows, and LTNs, are the three blunt tools that are employed by the council to reduce car ownership. To effectively operate all three you need cameras, camera cars, parking wardens and an administrative section to handle fines. Are you suggesting the council are not involved in the funding of these in any way? The council also aims to put bike storage on every street, which also remove parking- funded how? How are parklets and street furniture for blocking LTNs funded? For that matter, can we be completely sure where the money to fund Dulwich Junction has come from? How are the many CPZ consultations funded, are we absolutely sure existing CPZ income is never used to fund further consultation on CPZ? How do we separate what is strictly a council service from a stated council agenda and mission? This is also perhaps a matter of a little bit of wordplay. I would suggest that while in the strictest sense CPZ money does not fund council services, it is quite likely funding certain council agendas and interventions.

Moving on from my earlier (admittedly facetious) response, if CPZ' genuinely cause the majority of car users to dump their cars en masse, may we assume that councils will then stop charging those genuinely dependent on them? The council does seem to want it both ways. On the one hand they seem to accept that many people (a bit like Malumbu and myself) need to keep a car for occasional trips which are very difficult to do in any other way, but they also claim they want to reduce or even eradicate car ownership. However, so long as they accept that cars are sometimes necessary it is a muddled position. If there is no bulk dumping of cars what do we conclude from that; that more people are really genuinely dependent on cars than we had thought or hoped or that the council is not charging enough car ownership tax (CPZ)? If the latter and the council is genuine in wanting to rid the borough of cars, why does it not put the CPZ up really high, so high that people will abandon cars in their droves? After all, is it not the contention of some of you here that the majority in this part of the borough have no need of a car at all? I also echo Penguin in asking what is the evidence that CPZ' ( plus extended double yellows that are invariably added) significantly reduce pollution - I assume this is what Malumbu means by environmentally friendly journeys? If fewer users than anticipated discontinue using their cars, driving round and round looking for spaces is hardly going to impact pollution from exhaust fumes or tires.

And what about the permit aspect? Is it right that local residents will be charged for parking but coaches ferrying children from out of borough to school, get to park gratis? Coaches which take up the space of many cars and may also emit fumes for some time as they sit with engines idling?

Are these the same diesel school coaches that leave their engines on and idling while waiting to pick up children? Is it right they get to park for free as they bus in children from other parts of London, but local residents have to pay to park?

I imagine it is down to careful phrasing of what you intend to do. So some intentions are explicit and others are kept in mind but not necessarily stated, that way things you might want to do but have yet to raise funds for can be presented as 'new'.

How can CPZ's distinguish between what is a necessary and unnecessary journey?

I think the last point is really valid. The issue with the hills at either end of ED means unless you are fit and able you will have to use an e-bike. Many e-bikes are heavy and that makes it difficult to store them in the home and move them in and out, again strength and fitness is an issue. Outside storage does not feel safe and theft is also an issue. Some may not feel comfortable using hire bikes for various reasons. Lime bikes are quite cumbersome. I would prefer to use my own bike, rather than prop up some distant USA tech company. If we had a flat landscape cycling as a go to means of transport much more feasible. As it is, the additive effects of hills, potholes in roads, bike theft and feeling safe after dark, all work against it.

Earl just needs to 'win', that is clear. A number of us now have had experience of careless cycling in the ED and Dulwich area, but especially around Vanity Square... likely owing to the design which makes it unclear what is and what isn't a cycling area. But Earl states these experiences are "unbelievable" and push the bounds of "probability" because HE has not experienced them. This is clearly a ludicrous position. I think most will draw their own conclusions as to what is motivating him to twist and turn to get himself out of this. It is no good spouting stats about cars, cars no longer drive through Vanity Square. This is purely and simply about the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians ( plus disability vehicles).

Earl said: " I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car." Good that you finally recognise there is a risk of being hit by a bicycle. Those hire bikes are pretty heavy; I would not like to be hit by one of those at all.

What on earth is a "frighteningly good school"? Back to Vanity Square, quite aside from the design which seems to encourage careless cycling, we still have to consider whether any perceived benefits justify the massive costs. I think that is doubtful.

Earl said: "And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it." Now you are trying to divert and deflect again. I have had recent experiences which you have decided must be untrue because you have not had the same experience. Please do not try to claim that you and only you can ascertain "verifiable objective reality", after all, we only have your word for it that you have never experienced or seen any dangerous or careless cycling in the area. I

Earl said:" So the point I make is one of perspective, proportion and reality. I didn't bring up bias, that was firstmate. But I will answer his quip. Whilst I have no doubt that you have noticed people cycling across the square, it stretches the bounds of probability that you have come close to being hit on multiple occasions. I suggest that your antipathy to 'cyclists' and the creation of the square may be leading you to be hyper vigilant when it comes to misdemeanours involving bicycles and prone to over interpreting inconsiderate behaviour, as regular, and dangerous 'near misses'. " 1. you do not have an exclusive take on reality. My reality may be different to yours, but they are equally valid. 2. At least you now seem to accept I did not ask you a question or request an answer from you. 3. The near misses are genuine, it is just you seem unable to accept things unless they also happen to you. 4.My only antipathy is towards careless cyclists. I am also a cyclist. 5. Explain how you "over interpret" a near miss? As I said, to openly start accusing others of lying just because you really do not want to accept events that do not tally with your perspective comes over as desperate.

At no point in my last few posts have I asked you a question (other than rhetorical)? Show me where I have? Honestly Earl, this is what you do, consistently accuse others of cognitive biases in a feeble attempt to back up your own perspective as the only one that is valid. Then you claim things have been said when they haven't. Read again my earlier posts as I have been pretty clear about my experiences with cyclists recently. But what is truly laughable is the kernel of your whole take on the subject is as quoted from you, below: Earl said: "Not once have I had a cyclist nearly hit me on the pavement or swear at me." So because it has not happened to you... then for others who report it, it is "unbelievable". Then you accuse others of hyperbole but simultaneously claim posters, including me, are: "actively seeking out examples of people on bicycles breaking the rules and then to exaggerate those experiences, claiming constant 'near' misses are occurring". "individuals are being mown down by people on push bikes all over Dulwich" It is hard to take you seriously, Earl. Get those blinkers off and stop misrepresenting and exaggerating for effect.

I know Earl would love to detour into a heated debate on what cognitive biases are, but I won't bite, thanks (most of us do know, but nice try). Your MO is quite familiar now, get into some hair splitting and deflect. I have recently been on the receiving end of a spate of careless cyclists and a couple of near misses where, yes, I have been sworn at. You are seriously stretching the bounds of probability in suggesting that I and others go looking for it?! That is such a poor and ridiculous response not worthy even of you. The facts are more people are using bikes to get around. They may be people who have not done much cylcing before. They have had no training on what is appropriate. I would guess many are not aware running red light is illegal and cycling on non shared pavements is not allowed either. Stop burying your head in the sand, wake up and admit there is work to be done on the agenda to transition to 'active travel'.

Because with only one street out of all the streets consulted in favour, they could not impose it on every street. They have to give the 'appearance of listening'. You almost immediately trotted out the line "they listened". Although had they truly listened only one road would have CPZ. They will have imposed just enough to place parking pressure on the surrounding areas. Their's is a long game Malumbu, but many are wise to it.

But this is a thread about CPZ and therefore car use/ownership, not lifestyle. "What we should be doing" includes you; if even you cannot do without a car, that speaks volumes.

Have you stopped driving cars Malumbu? My guess is not. If you, of all people, are still driving every so often and making those long trips to France, then I fail to see how the car-free utopia you envisage will ever be? CPZ will not dramatically stop car ownership or journeys, it just costs the owner more. LTN will not stop car ownership or journeys they just displace traffic. Not a fan of Farage at all, but amusing, and possibly revealing, you would dictate how he should pronounce his own name.

A Council with absolutely no mandate for borough wide CPZ, or indeed a local DV CPZ, just needs to get on and impose a largely unwanted agenda on to us all. There you have it. It seems the majority of resident consultees are 'moaners' , in your view. But, as we know, consultations don't count. So majority views are just discarded and I would guess that Councillors also label the majority who disagree with their agenda as an inconvenience and as 'moaners'. We can ask what the point of consultations is and may conclude that it is part of a process that must be done for the council to move on with its agenda, that is it. But the majority against that council agenda are discounted as 'moaners'. What does count are the extremely influential pro LTN and pro CPZ pressure groups that seem to have the Council's ear. What they advise seems to be what is done. As we also know, many of them are not even local but they set our local agenda on roads and traffic policy.

The Council need CPZ in Dulwich Ward to put pressure on parking elsewhere. This is all about moving towards more and more CPZ...this is what the council want but it has been blocked in consultation after consultation, as in the most re cent Dulwich Ward consultation where only one road wanted CPZ. The council then ignore the wishes of the majority of residents and go ahead and install a CPZ that a majority of those consulted say they do not want. I'll wait for the usual replies that consultations are not votes; not every resident responds to a consultation etc. Let's be clear though, the stated council agenda is for borough wide CPZ and they will force it through. They do not listen to residents; virtually every move is box ticking to give the appearance of listening, including the DV consultation.

Yep, if it is not Earl's daily experience then it is not true. Earl the man who preaches about cognitive biases.

Is it still gridlocked up at Sydenham Hill/ Kirkdale or is it now resolved?

Not Earl's only bad, he has now insinuated that my recent experiences with cyclists on footpaths are not true. I actually find that really offensive. I can assure Earl that every case is completely true. It seems Earl can only accept something if it is his own experience and anything that contradicts that must be a falsehood. Isn't he the one that has banged on and on about cognitive biases?

It will be interesting long term to see how well the landscaping / planting is looked after. The beds at the Tessa Jowell Centre are a mess. Who pays for the upkeep? The main issue though is that cyclists are not adhering to the bits meant to be cycled on but using the pedestrian areas too. That should be the focus here. Yesterday, walking out of the park onto the pedestrian only footpath, I was nearly taken out by a male on a Lime bike, who had decided to mount the pavement. He swore at me for being in his way!

Hoping it has been shelved too. My view is that if people can get away with souping up an e-bike they will. Technically it ceases to be a legal e-bike but it still looks like one at distance, meaning some may be more incentivised to risk speeding without the responsibilities of owning a motorbike, especially when money is short. Applying the same speed limit to all vehicles just makes everything clearer and may be a bit more of a deterrent for some. What would be the downside? I agree about food delivery services. Never use them.