first mate

But anyone can leave their bike in the street free of charge, it may not be secure but then cars are also broken into, stolen etc.. Now if people were asking for secure street storage for their car, as in a car hangar or similar, that would be different. Mind you, not convinced bike hangars are really that secure. Doubt I'd leave mine in one.

If we have more electric cars and other battery powered vehicles they may become less rare. Aren't they meant to be even more dangerous than petrol sources, if they do catch fire.

Just getting back to CPZ. I notice on page 8 of the SL manifesto 2022, under the main heading "Our Guarantee to you" they say they will empower communities to shape the areas they live in and to to make decisions about things that affect our lives. Then in bold they will "place residents at the heart of everything we do" Unless the council have added mass mind reading to their skillset then this is clearly a pack of lies where CPZ is concerned.

Ex Dulwicher said: "That woke leftie agenda of "make the place a bit nicer and a bit less car-dominated". The wholly undemocratic agenda of "give people a few more options to travel around that don't rely on ownership and use of a car". Those agendas? The ones that many councils around the country are bringing in via one form or another? What evil bastards those councils are! Why can't they just plough a motorway through Dulwich College grounds to solve the South Circular problem? Honestly, no ambition..." Once more, a prime example of stereotyping and hyperbole in order to fudge. Who said "woke" or "leftie". Those are entirely your words Ex. James McAsh and Southwark have not been honest or democratic in choosing to impose measures, possibly against the wishes of many. Their motivations for so doing are dubious, likely revenue related and McAsh has done a complete about turn on promises he made in regard to CPZs.

Just substitute the private cars with zip cars, bike hangars, charging electric cars and loads of hire scooters and e-bikes and we may not be much further forward. The other thought is if enough pressure is applied some or even many households may go for the front garden car parking/dropped kerb option. Not great for the environment but... Would this also mean nothing else could be put there (thinking bikes, hangars, zip cars etc)?

Ex said: "It's right there in black and white - the council will look at tiered charges to favour smaller / less polluting vehicles. How that will be done is not spelled out (road user charges, parking charges??) but it's a clear indication of intent." "Looking at" is not the same as imposition. The intentions are very far from clear and as I think you very well know are deliberately as vague as possible. Given the additional insult of the picture of a gurning James McAsh, it also reeks of dishonesty. How easy it would have been to state something like "we will pursue imposition of a borough wide CPZ and extend low traffic neighbourhoods which, together with ULEZ, will reduce car use etc... You are really not persuading me or other sceptical posters that the intention is clear. Given their apparent inability to really do much about trains and buses why then was that mentioned but no the above? Just admit it, they did not want to go there.

Mr Chicken said: "There's nothing in there about rubbish collection and street trees. Oe Noes!!!11! they weren't mentioned in the manifesto! The council must stop because of democracy! Ooooh, now unless we are all missing something awfully, awfully clever, I do believe borough wide bin collections have existed for many years. What a pointless riposte. Full of sound and fury.

Ex Dulwicher said: "They're not mentioned because they don't have to be. The various political parties running for election (council or Government level) are not obliged to spell out every last detail of every promise in a manifesto - they put it there in the broad brush strokes, people vote them in or out accordingly and then the details come through:" Come on Ex, borough wide CPZ is a major move, there were no broad brush strokes, let alone any detail. Yet they did mention working with TFL to improve trains- with little if anything to show, as yet.

James McAsh recently said that the aim of CPZ was not to stop residents using their cars, which is interesting, given he is setting the borough wide policy.

Still waiting to hear where borough- wide CPZ and LTNs were mentioned in the last manifesto? These were not measures that were mandated. Their imposition is not democratic. The effects of the local LTNs are inequitable- Cllr McAsh has yet to respond to the request to investigate local data, although he has promised he will.

Chicken. Your rather long and convoluted answer reads like another attempt to distract and obfuscate. Salient points: borough wide CPZ is a really big deal. You'd have thought SL would mention such a big move in their manifesto at least once, just so voters could understand major policies they'd be voting for? SL maintain this move is mandated via doorstep chats. All very opaque. On the other hand, improvements to rail and bus networks were trumpeted and yet what has been done? Zilch. Odd that, don't you think? My local Councillor, Mr McAsh, is also leading borough policy on CPZ. He has totally reneged on promises and statements he made in regard to CPZ.

Eh, what. MR C, that is really taking thread sabotage to its limits. At least focus on what Rockets said. You say " the council said they'd tackle problems and they are". That is so vague it is worthless. Specifically, the council have no mandate for borough wide CPZ, it was not mentioned. How can a democracy work if voters don't know what they are voting for? What was mandated was improvement in bus and train networks? My local councillor made very clear promises and statements about CPZ which he has reneged on. A consultation that gives no option to reject the proposals is a joke and flies in the face of the statement that the council want to work with communities.

Thanks for this Heartblock, so useful to see the detail.

Representative of what or who? SL campaigned on a mandate which did not mention anything about LTNs or borough wide CPZ. My ( not sure if yours) local councillor made promises in regard to the latter which he has ripped up and consigned to the bin. No democratic process there.

Precisely.

As I understand it, Southwark Council are taking over installation and management of cycle hangars, so that might explain the delay.

It is good to hear from people who actually know what has gone on. Good also to hear James McAsh own words, showing how he has reneged on promises to listen to all residents rather than simply impose.

This has stitch up written all over it. Registering for a place allows the council to know in advance who wants to attend and they can cherry pick. I bet the room is full of supporter groups and, as was evident earlier in the year, there is the mailing list that gives such groups advance notice. Further manipulation of outcomes by Southwark Labour. Sorry to sound so cynical and my post will no doubt set off guffaws about conspiracies and tin hats, but I have no trust in this council.

So the second, 'official' consultation is a meaningless exercise simply to tick a legal box. People can say 'no' to CPZ in their droves but it will be imposed, against their wishes, anyway. What then was the purpose of the first consultation if public opinion does not matter? Where is the mandate for this CPZ imposition?

Unlike LTNs and CPZ, working to improve and increase bus and train services was a Southwark Labour manifesto promise. Can anyone say what has been achieved to date, locally?

I think I had understood that bit Ex. I am more interested in what the report says about Nunhead residents being told they will have an opportunity to say no to a CPZ but that CPZs will go ahead anyway. This may be poor reporting or just badly expressed, but it could sound like 'you can say no and we will note your objection but our minds are already made up'. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Also, if this is what Nunhead residents were told then what is the mechanism by which they will be/ are able to express an objection?

But I thought the journalism was sub standard and on a par with The Daily Mail. At least that was what was being said a few days ago. That little volte face aside, I think it is a balanced article with one man who used to live in Camberwell saying he liked the CPZ, another, who also says he is from Camberwell and who is Southwark Cyclists but wishes to be anonymous, also likes the CPZ. The article also points out major opposition to CPZ in ED and Nunhead, and that residents in Nunhead have been told they will have a chance to say no to CPZ but borough-wide CPZ will happen anyway!? Can anyone shed light on the last bit?

It is just more iffy tactics to derail, distract and undermine. You have one poster describing others as irrational, as adopting the tactics of US Republicans and Tories, of lying or putting words into that poster's mouth. Another insinuates those who do not agree with them are hate filled or have mental health problems. What a lovely bunch.

Yes, I'd also like to know what a fire bike is.

How does one "act as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis". What gobbledegook. Hilarious. The flaw in your argument is that it is Southwark Labour cllrs who have claimed the election result showed a majority of residents were in favour of LTNs and CPZ. I have always said many are against, but numbers for and against locally would only really become more clear if a properly designed, transparent consultation is held, with the option to state you don't want either.