first mate

Earl, the way you choose to interpret my comments is totally down to you, but is not evidence of my motivation for making those comments. I have already said I have reservations about pavement widening plans and have given reasons why.

March, you always seem to be across the detail of council plans and immediately stated there were no plans for a cycle lane, so presumably you have access to that detail you can share? This may be down to your superior internet research skills but please share with us?

@Earl Aelfheah I am expressing doubts, that is not the same as making an outright statement against something. However, I would appreciate you quoting me accurately in future. As your assembly of my statements on the proposed Gyratory changes show, I have not said "I don't want pavements wider" for pedestrians. Those are your words and yours only and are highly misleading. We can all agree that cyclists and motorcyclists on single-use pedestrian areas are a bad thing, but there seems little will to do anything about it. It may require more creative thinking. Having witnessed recent cycling behaviour round Dulwich Square I can only echo P68's thoughts that while it may not seem much of an issue now, if use of bikes, and e-bikes in particular, increases, it may well become one in the not too distant future.

P68, well said and we must not forget that perception of being unsafe while using the pavement is a negative factor for some elderly and vulnerable. A cyclist swerving to avoid a pedestrian may cause no material damage, but it can affect wellbeing and confidence.

But Earl, please show where I said, " I do not want widened pavements" in the Peckham Gyratory? I merely pointed out that it is not necessarily the improvement for pedestrians you claim it is. It may be, that is if it is not used as a cut through by cyclists and motorcyclists- something we do see in other recently pedestrianised areas. As an aside, please do not state that I have "obsessions" as I believe that is offensive and derogatory. Let's keep things civil. I am sure admin will agree.

You can give an address, as the roads within the consultation are listed along with a category that says "other". However, as you say, people can tick one of the named roads, even if they do not live in one and there is no way of knowing. Also, the 'other' category allows equal weight to be given to the response of someone that lives a mile away and visits the area (perhaps cycling in) and someone who lives on a street close by or adjacent to the consultation area, who will be directly affected by displaced parking. The over- arching question is how the council has given an undertaking that CPZ will only be imposed if streets want it? How can they know?

Geh, please share more as and when you get it. This is an example of misinformation being given out to residents at the 'consultation' meetings. Another poster was told at one of the meetings that streets that do not want CPZ will not be made to have it. It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians.

On 07/02/2025 at 09:33, Earl Aelfheah said: For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI Data is separated out according to vehicle or pedestrian. I need to look out how data is sourced and whether that might involve collisions on paved or pedestrian areas. That aside, there is a category for pedal cycles and for motorcycles. Which category do e-bikes fall under? I assume illegal e-bikes go under motorcycles and other e-bikes under pedal bikes?

Posted in wrong thread.

I can confirm I am not involved with or affiliated to any of those groups mentioned.

Precisely, and they have already built and still we have below average interest in cycling in the borough. Having listened to a Southwark Scrutiny session looking at the cycling issue, it seems there are significant barriers to uptake which building more and more infrastructure will not address or shift.

Ah, okay LOL. I thought it was a bit brusque.

Snowy, you seem to know quite a lot about this stuff. Can you shed any light on how the consultation results are collated? How do we know if someone calling for CPZ in their street (by answering 'yes' to that mandatory question, "do you want CPZ on your street") actually lives directly inside or on a street adjacent to, the consultation area?

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure.

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure. March, you are right, I am reposting this elsewhere.

I believe the council rationale was that streets your side would not be affected if CPZ is installed on Melbourne Grove and streets off it. For that reason they have not let streets your side know. However, they have likely alerted the various pro CPZ pressure groups, whose advocates may not live even close by. We also know that people living as much as a mile away are responding and, presumably, those responses will impact the final result.

I asked this question on another thread by mistake, so it got lost. Can anyone explain how CPZ results are collated and interpreted so the council is clear how each street in the consultation area has responded? One of the mandatory questions asks if you want CPZ in your street, however only the streets in the consultation area are named? How do respondents living well outside the consultation area answer that question? If that question is not answered the response is discounted.

I hope things are as you say. If impacts limited then all well and good. Fingers crossed it continues. Yes, you are right, sorry about that.

I am pretty sure about the paid for spaces at the end of each street off LL and that they were presenting parking on on LL as a way to support businesses. Either way, it just struck me as odd that with so many against shoppers in cars that a case for CPZ was in part being made on the need to support hem.

I apologise and withdraw my comment. I am a cyclist so absolutely no problem with that either. We can all agree the crossing is very necessary; just wish it could be done more quickly as it will create a lot of problems.

Think I read it in a leaflet. I cannot remember exactly because written information pushed through doors was different from what was online.

Absolutely, I am sure you are. Can you just help me understand how the consultation answers work if you respond to the question about whether you want CPZ on your street in the consultation area? How does that work if you don't live in the consultation area? Sorry Mal, you may not know, but in terms of collating the responses and data I wonder how this info is sifted so they know what consultees living in each street within the consultation area want? It is an important and relevant question because, even recently, a poster on here was advised that no street would be made CPZ if the street did not want it. Can anyone advise?

Ah, I did not know that. A glance at the LCC and Southwark Cyclist website shows how very invested they are getting in on consultations all over the borough.

They also want to install 'metered' parking at the end of every side street. What you'll get is more congestion and more driving round waiting for spaces. I genuinely do not think this is the positive move it has been presented as. Quite apart from that, it is a large chunk of money every year on a permit, then any visitors / necessary building and maintenance work on top, and by all accounts still no guarantee you will necessarily be able to park when you need to.