first mate

The big difference, other than increasingly flaking paint, seems to be graffiti. The question is, will that/ can it be controlled?

There will always be kids pushing the envelope as the saying goes, but having some boundaries should help most understand what they can and cannot do. I think dedicated, daily park wardens is exactly what is required...with a hotline to SNT teams on the beat. Is there no way money made from Gala or from Park parking fees can be diverted to provide that funding? I feel it would be a really good use of money. The principle aim being to maintain the park as a safe and relaxing environment for all. If funding really cannot be found I wonder if there might be funding to at least train volunteer park wardens?

Completely unacceptable. They need to fund a proper, permanent park warden presence or this sort of behaviour will get worse. Parks should be safe for all to enjoy and being assaulted and threatened by teenage gangs may put more vulnerable people off using the park altogether. If they are prepared to threaten to hurt an animal then where might it lead? This does not sound like kids just being silly; lobbing water bombs at each other is one thing, but targeting complete strangers out for a walk and minding their own business and trying to kick their dog is, in my view, no laughing matter. A group of 15 teenagers can be intimidating, not to everyone but for some it can be, especially if their behaviour is aggressive.

CPZ stands for Cat Pee Zone; they never move on and the streets are literally awash with widdling felines.

Here come the thought police.

@Earl Aelfheah ? Polite reminder, this thread is about: Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

Thank you but now I am really confused as to why Earl was making a huge issue about a requirement to pay for it, or even more strange, suggesting we should steal it from a reference library?

Not sure what your last comment means? Aside from that, I take it you think the possibility of holding a consultation over the school holidays when lots of people are away, is a great idea?

Unless those with access to the actual research can show that is not the case? Does anyone know how this research has been funded? If the funding is wholly private then I understand why it is not available for the public to see; if it is partly funded by public money then we should not have to pay to scrutinise it.

Forgive me if I try to get this thread back on subject; does anyone know if there are plans for a statutory consultation around proposed MGS CPZ? This was slated in the last council documents I have seen for June/July. It would be a cynical move for this to happen when lots of people are away on summer holidays.

Still no news about the statutory consultation for the proposed reduced MGS CPZ- as per recommendations approved by the Cabinet Member in June. has anyone heard anything about this?

There is a third option, that someone who has been able to access the research in full, and who seems well-versed in the contents, answers questions about methodology. In fairness, you have shared some information but seem reluctant to share other bits. It is also slightly frustrating and counterproductive that the research that apparently underpins and justifies council policy and decisions around LTNs is so very hard to access. If the research was in any way partly funded by tax payer money, then it should be publicly available.

If we are referring to the same study, the conclusion is: "LTNs in London reduced road traffic injuries among all road users inside the LTN areas, with no evidence of overall impact (and for cyclists and motorcyclists a benefit) on boundary roads. Is this the study and conclusion you refer to?

Thanks Earl, how is London defined? How many boroughs included, how many -if at all- not included? Within those boroughs included how many roads in total and out of that figure how roads included and how many not? No, you suggested that I could go to a reference library and then "steal" a copy. I would never do such a thing and find it offensive that you suggest I might. Similarly, I would not rip down materials posted on private property because I did not agree with or wanted to block the content.

Perhaps the OP already has, hence her question?

Not sure why you would imply I am the type to "steal"? It is low level attack along the lines of your earlier comments implying that I lied about cycling behaviour I had witnessed. Are you ok? So we have established that you have read the paper in its entirety but are unable to share the information because it is paid for, but that does not stop you outlining the methodology? No harm in doing that, surely?

@Earl Aelfheah Okay, so you agree there may be a reason to look more carefully at speed controls for cyclists? If you don't think the policy is necessarily negative as outlined in the article why then do you view the article as having a slightly negative tone? That does not make sense. A "wake up call" simply means that instead of going into knee- jerk denial mode that an increase in cycling and cycling modes (e-bikes; cargo bikes) might require additional controls, we open our minds to what is going on in other countries with greater experience of cycling infrastructure, and take note.

It was signed off by him last month and the document also indicated a statutory consultation in June. So far nothing. I do not think the leadership debacle, which was some time later, will affect that decision. However, I wonder if he will also refuse to serve under Sarah King?

The simplest thing would be to post it up or send a copy over by PM. It undermines your position to withhold that information.

@Earl Aelfheah https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963 Do you really think putting speed limits on cyclists is negative? Given this is being considered in the mecca of cycling, it should surely serve as a wake up call?

Has anyone heard anything more about a second consultation given Cllr McAsh' signed approval of the recommendation for a reduced 3-road CPZ?

Heaven forbid, but you have a point. With Labour in central government it may feel 'safe' to shake things up a bit. I wish we had some decent independent candidates, preferably not those hoping to use the role as a stepping stone to greater things.

I agree. Internal rifts and factions will be music to Farage's ears. McAsh wrote something not long ago about how the centre and left need each other. This government is far from ideal but we need some stability not a far-left coup.

@Insuflo No, in light of Tory mismanagement over Covid and subsequent fallout there were other issues to focus on. Surely you are not suggesting everyone voting Labour at the time were doing so to show support for LTNs? There was no mention in the manifesto of LTNs or CPZ as a central policy. What Labour did state up front was that they promised local residents would be put at the heart of decisions made about their area. Subsequently, the Dulwich Village LTN was imposed against overwhelming opposition- so that manifesto pledge was broken, almost immediately. There was no mandate for LTN meddling, it was just done, some would say opportunistically.

Quick fact check; Southwark Labour did not run on a pro LTN agenda. A policy to increase LTNs and COZ was not mentioned in the manifesto. Not only that, within East Dulwich imposition of CPZ had been roundly rejected at consultation.