first mate

It happens already, it has always happened, and I am fine with it. It just means sometimes we cannot park outside the house and occasionally have to park on another street. There is no need for a CPZ.

@Malumbu So you live well out of area but say you participated in the consultation. What I do not understand is when you answered the question about whether you want CPZ on your street, how did you answer? This is to help me understand how it works, because your street is not within the consultation area? BTW it is Melbourne Grove, not road.

Where did I say Southwark or TFL hate drivers? Unintended consequences of necessary interventions can still be useful in meeting an agenda, can't they? Are you denying that there is a use of nudge tactics to get drivers out of cars? 13 weeks seems a very long time to implement a crossing on a major route.

Do you believe the council and TFL do not work closely on such matters? There is also a difference between deliberately extending work and just not going the extra mile to reduce it. This will cause a lot of disruption and 13 weeks to build a crossing feels excessive.

Thanks for drawing attention to that campaign Earl. I hope residents will get involved. I imagine local businesses are best placed to know the threats or challenges local CPZ might place on them. I know a number of local businesses are very worried and galvanising support. What do you think about the council encouraging visitors in cars to park on the high street? Aren't you one of those that gets upset about the impact of parked cars on the high street on cyclists and buses? Do you agree with what the council are doing in this respect?

Nope Earl. You, me and everyone else here know that Rockets was talking about the length of time to do the work, not the work itself. At 13 weeks, the length of time to complete the work is the potential nudge tactic under discussion not the crossing itself. As you also know, Rockets has very clearly stated support for the crossing, saying it is necessary. 13 weeks may be standard for a crossing of this type to be created, it just seems a painfully long time on a major route like this and you cannot help but think it might be completed more quickly.

No one has argued the crossing is a ruse to cause disruption, simply that not much effort seems to have been made to minimise disruption, in that 13 weeks to put in a crossing does seem quite lengthy, given the position of the crossing on a major route. However, not one poster has argued, as you are suggesting, that the crossing is unnecessary or only there to make the life of drivers difficult. That interpretation is all yours. To my surprise though, Malumbu has applauded Southwark for putting in a cycle lane in order to control traffic. I had not realised a cycle lane could be put in for this purpose.

But, for someone who has no strong feelings you are focused on just one aspect and repeat it to seem like it is the main and only point . What about the fact that there is not sufficient parking pressure to warrant a CPZ? What do you say about that and why then is the council so very keen to make it happen? Why is the council suddenly so keen to facilitate shoppers in cars when the reason for the first CPZ was to deter this? Only recently, a pro CPZ/LTN activist posted criticism of shoppers in cars in ED. Do you agree that a major reason to impose unnecessary CPZ on ED is because zones much closer to central London have them, even though they benefit from vastly superior transport links? The messaging is muddled and inconsistent. What do you think about the consultation wording and design?

Businesses on LL have set out reasons why this could be an issue for them. If you live in the area you will surely be aware of these. I would add that I do not personally think CPZ will lead to the complete collapse of the Lane but it could make life very difficult for some of the independents and I would hate to lose those. Long term, if businesses fold there will always be others to step in, the chains in particular. But part of EDs charm lies in its independent shops. Aside from that, currently parking pressure is not enough to warrant a CPZ and parking pressure is the only legal reason to impose one. I do have a problem with cycling activists that live outside the area taking it upon themselves to try to impose CPZ on others for ideological reasons.

I suspect you are wrong.

The fact that people continue to post about these matters should tell you something as well. As a cycling activist, it is understandable you wish it would all just disappear, leaving you with a version of the world you prefer and that suits you best. It is just that many do not share your perspective. As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

That's a good reminder that I do not think I have ever seen anyone ever cycle up or down that hill. Obviously they must do but pretty infrequently, so yes, the cycle lane must have been put in for other reasons...It shows that use /misuse of road management powers to deter drivers cannot just be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Thanks Malumbu for helping to make that point.

The fact that despite everything, people still get into their cars is telling you something.

There is an argument that because neither you or anyone else is really in a position to decide what is or is not an unnecessary journey, in your zeal to curtail those you negatively affect necessary journeys, also. However, I guess you would see that as acceptable collateral damage. I doubt the Southwark/ TFL would set out to actively extend works to cause maximum disruption, they just may not put much effort into keeping them as short as possible. The two are rather different, as I am sure you will appreciate.

If you look at the aims for Southwark and for TFL, within the borough, the desired outcomes and rhetoric are almost identical. It is not hatred of drivers but there is a definite aim to get as many people out of cars as possible. Currently, there seems to be a preference for sticks rather than carrots, so it is entirely possible that making life as difficult as possible for car drivers is seen as justifiable, more so as we head into spring, when the warmer weather may be less of a deterrent to those considering other modes of travel.

I think Spartacus did read what you said and reacted to it. Perhaps part of the issue lies with you as an able-bodied cycling activist feeling the need to emphasise cycling as an option to those who require blue badges and have poor mobility and probably have a good grasp of what their needs and options are, already.

The inference that those who have difficulty walking can just 'give-up' and go for home prescription deliveries instead does not feel very inclusive. Perhaps, along with the disabled cycle parking, there needs to be more than one car parking space outside the chemist or very close by.

Indeed and it is clear from the points raised by those who go around trying to ensure CPZ are imposed in areas they do not live in, that parking pressure is hardly a consideration at all.

Some people commute in by car; that is what I was referring to. Essentially your rationale boils down to - some parts of London have controlled parking (mainly those closer to the centre, to tube trains and better transport hubs) so East Dulwich should have it too. You are not really that interested in relieving parking pressure- the only reason to have CPZ- but want it imposed on an area you do not live in for ideological reasons.

The people who drive in for work may not live in areas well served by public transport, it may be much more difficult for them to use public transport. That aside, currently the parking pressure is not so great in the ED consultation area that a CPZ is required. That is the only reason to impose one.

How do you know the detail of what comments were received on that consultation?

Those who are disabled should not have to ask, not when millions of pounds have been spent reconfiguring a road junction into a public space with equal access and facility for all. Perception of safety is a valid issue. Those less able bodied may feel more at risk if pedestrian areas are regularly ridden through by cyclists. Being on edge affects wellbeing negatively. When the junction was a road, the clear demarcation between road and pavement reduced that sense of risk. That clear demarcation has completely gone.

The council knew that people were protesting about their needs from the outset. The council should have thought about all this and factored those needs in, before proceeding. It reflects really badly that DEI clearly has not been carefully considered and reasonable adjustments made to implementation.

Interested to know how the evidence for a majority in favour on that street was collated? If there was a known side hustle on Gilkes it seems odd the council never took action, wouldn't it be illegal to operate a business out on the street without a licence? That aside, the only legal reason for imposing a CPZ is because of parking pressure. A lot of people in the current consultation area do not believe CPZ is warranted on those grounds, that is unless you are someone that expects to park outside your home every day. The current arguments in favour of CPZ on here, and posited by the council, revolve around pollution and making things 'fairer' for shoppers visiting ED in cars as well as 'fairer' to those that live in CPZ zones closer to the city, despite them having far superior transport links. Cllr McAsh also says he wants to rid the streets of all cars, so hopes to pound car owners into submission with increasing CPZ charges. Alongside this, the council is trying to maintain the appearance of concern and support for businesses on Lordship Lane by saying cars can continue to park on the high street. However, think how many anti- car posters on here have moaned about parked cars impeding buses on the high street. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Spot on. There is currently enough room to park most of the time. Sometimes it may need to be a street away.