first mate

I was told that there had been issues because of the bank holiday weekend and posties are on holiday (which they are entitled to be of course) but sounds like management of shifts and hire of relief workforce a bit all over the place. Post very hit and miss my way.

I referred to something that you posted a while back, please don't deny you said those things. Others here will remember. Again, you want discussion but as soon as anyone disagrees with your view you start up with your 'anger' angle- not so dissimilar from the stuff you were doing earlier. It is quite simple, as cycling increases the risk for harm also increases, unless you want to try to argue there is no such thing as careless cycling? After all, as others have observed, many of us cyclists are also motorists or vice versa, those inclined to 'take the gap' in a car are likely to take similar risks when cycling, ditto for those who speed. Cycling on pavements when it is seemingly a bit random and there is no clear idea of when it is okay and when it is not, is beginning to become problematic in some areas. It may be difficult to 'police' but we need to find a way before it really gets out of hand. I believe Brent are having issues with Lime bikes and may get rid of them.

Also, the council was not mandated to impose these CPZs. I am not in favour of paternalistic government, residents should be listened to not told they will have something whether they like it or not. On this point, neither was the council mandated to spend £5 million turning a small part of Dulwich Village into a square. It just decided to go ahead, despite significant local objection. James McAsh was I believe quite clear in stating that areas that did not want CPZ would not get them.

This point about personal snipes is rich coming from you (at one point you were suggesting some of us had mental health problems and needed counselling). I opened the debate by asking that we keep it local (ie not try to score points by citing national statistics). It would be great if you engaged Mal and admitted there are issues with careless cycling and how this can be addressed before it gets out of hand. Why is that seemingly so incredibly difficult for you to do? Every time the issue of careless cycling is raised one of you retorts with a " but cars are worse". How is that engaging in the debate? Far from engaging you and others repeatedly try to close it down. Out cycling on Greendale the other day, it was quite crowded with cyclists, there were also dogs and children milling around. Most cyclists were going slowish and were mindful of others, but one guy flew by, pedalling as fast as he could and nearly hit a dog. On Peckham Rye yesterday, two kids on a souped up e-bike went at top speed (looked like 35mph +) across the length of the common and then the footpath. I would say every time I am out on my bike I see careless cycling- I see careless driving also but there are penalties in place for that (not perfect) for careless cycling there is nothing.

No, it is not funny and it is awful for anyone registered with this abomination of a practice. If GPs are not available then how can it call itself a GP practice? Nurse practitioners are highly qualified and great but they are not qualified doctors. I must underline how crazy it was that the awful money-grabbing company that owns the practice was ever handed one of the best sites in the borough.

No it is about the appalling state of local pavements, but the comparison with Dulwich Square is relevant since I bet the paving there won't puddle or produce trip hazards. How has the council found 5 million to spend on that very small area in a wealthy area and get that work done pronto, yet swathes of East Dulwich paving is cracked and falling apart. Priorities?

And always goes into massive uk-wide generalisations. We've said, so many times now, that the focus of the forum and a thread on the ED traffic section on the forum should be about ED and the Dulwich area, specifically. Unless some are trying to get the thread lounged by taking it off course (surely not)? All that said, I am not denying there is a problem with dangerous/ careless car driving. I have real contempt for those that flout 20mph...no excuse. But can we try to stick to the growing issue of cycling on pavements and start thinking about what can be done to stop that locally?

Yes, fair enough, but I would not compare local residents use with that of a tech giant.

Genuine question. Can the moped 'victim' check to see if you are insured and then take action anyway? Plus would there be implications for the driver in stating they are not insured when they are? Might another course of action be to hold tight and insist on calling the police - who probably would not come out- before releasing any details?

Well, I know of three people that have tripped walking along Lordship Lane because of uneven paving; two of them fell and suffered bad fractures as a result. That is just in the last few years! There has been work on the pavements over the years but, as others have noted, the work is so badly done it never lasts. Look at the state of Northcross road paving too. Parts of that are now very uneven.

The pavements are a disgrace and often present a danger to those with various physical impairments as well as the able bodied among us. Quite how the Council squares this with its much heralded aim to increase and support active travel is the question. Councillors just need to apply themselves to the boring and 'unsexy' work of getting the basics right.

Listening again to Lime at the Scrutiny session, I think Lime want to fund marking out and 'capturing' space on every street, but I think the spaces would be shared use. In principle this sounds a good idea but I cannot see anyone just leaving their privately owned bike standing in a space. I am wary of even leaving mine chained up. I think it is probably okay to have a space on every street because you can probably fit 5 Lime bikes into one car space. I would not want to see demands for more than two or three spaces maximum per street as that would exceed likely demand. It occurs that Lime/e-bike spaces could probably be placed in double yellow line space. Those were suddenly increased for debatable reasons. However, using that 'extra' space for e-bike parking would still inhibit cars without reducing sight lines.

Look at the Council scrutiny sessions on housing. There has been huge mismanagement, possibly bordering on criminal, and I believe this sector of the council is under some sort of investigation. I would seek legal advice as the sort of money you are being asked to pay is extraordinary. If you have only recently bought the property it might also be worth asking why charges of this nature did not come up in searches?

Suggest we invest in improving the pavement we already have, as per the OP, rather than widening. The paving round ED is very slapdash and soon degrades; as RCH pointed out, it is often not well laid in the first place. I wish councillors would focus on the boring detail of our basic infrastructure and less on grand (some would argue unnecessary) projects, like Dulwich Square and 'parklets'. Nice to see you back RCH. Your perspective is most valuable and a welcome change since you have real experience/expertise in some of the threads under discussion.

I don't think so but Lime stated at a Scrutiny meeting last month that they would like parking space on every road in the borough set aside for e-bike and scooter storage. I believe they would fund identifying and marking out of the space, don't know if they would then 'own' those road spaces or lease them or just be given them. They would be negotiating with the council as well as TFL. My guess would be they would fund 'policing' by wardens (also doing their CPZ rounds etc), and that way Southwark would get a valued money making resource funded indirectly.

A tangential point, but between Lime and Voi the branding colours are really full on and when scattered around look a mess. Forest bikes are a much better colour, at least.

Still odd to describe London as super flat, or whatever she said. I'm thinking about areas like Hampstead, Highgate, our own area of Dulwich with Forest Hill one end and Dog Kennel Hill the other.

The PO is open again, as far as I know.

Well, no but it is or was a major access route into DV, hence the negative impact on those with mobility issues.

This is really seen as adequate justification for spending millions on the space? As for people across the borough visiting. Really? I just cannot see people making Dulwich Square a must see destination. They will pass through to go and visit the shops, the pub and restaurants, the parks, and the famous Picture Gallery. They will pass through because many will have to, it is one of the routes into DV. DKH, it is the council and Cabinet member in charge wot make the policy therefore they are accountable, you cannot really get away from that, no matter how many "lols" you post 🙂 You still have not revealed the identity of your "Mr One Dulwich"? I have asked quite a few times now?

But with so many local venues, not to mention the large parks replete with free seating, just a few minutes down the road, you can't seriously mean there was a pressing need for this space?

Apparently the PO on LL is closed? There is a handwritten sign in the window saying closed owing to technical issues. There is no phone number or way to check when or if it will open again? If anyone from the branch reads this perhaps they could post and update us? It might save people time and effort. It might also be useful to update the website, which says the branch is open. If this is only very temporary and already open again then I apologise.

Hmm, I think it they are referencing that great Wings hit "Let em in" (Someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell"etc..). They may not have considered the suitability of the title for your particular thread 🤣 I think and hope it was little kids playing knock down ginger. Teenagers booting people's doors for a dare not so excusable.

Surely you are not suggesting I have the same power, reach and influence as Cllr McAsh? Cllr McAsh is, for now, the Cabinet Member in charge of the Streets for People policy, so it is legitimate to comment on how he handles the decision making process and optics around that. I think a number of us wondered why he had changed from describing himself as Marxist to socialist? It is relevant to know what ideology may be driving his political decisions. Anyway, you still haven't revealed who"Mr One Dulwich" is? You and others have referred to this mystery individual a number of times. I am surprised you are keeping his identity under wraps.