first mate

Poor show Chicken. Trying to frame those you don't agree with as adopting tactics of the far right is a rather despicable smear and reflects badly on you.

Well Chicken, you did totally misquote Spartacus and I called you out on it. You do seem to regularly accuse everyone else of lying but it is good you are over your more shouty in bold/caps phase.

CEO's will be paid for by the huge amount of money for roads, currently in surplus. That is why CPZ and the infrastructure to support its imposition and management/ enforcement, which includes upscaling CEO's, is self -funding and will reap profits, probably paying for bike hangars etc.. too. So with all those CEO's running around issuing FPN's for parking infractions why not make further use of that 'force' which is/will be very healthily funded. Or PCSOs, who as I am sure you know have only limited powers, so would not be taken away from more serious police work, but are a useful street presence. PSPOS are another flexible instrument that could be looked at (although Ex does not agree). I believe something is to be trialled in City of London where there will be powers to issue fines to cyclists on pavements and for running red lights.

Rocks, it was at the scrutiny session when Williams went off at Clive Rates and then at the Assembly when McAsh spoke, although the sound was so appalling you could only hear the odd sentence.

I'm surprised you don't know what CEOs are...or PSPOS for that matter?

Can I just point out that Cllrs Williams and McAsh have made a big deal about how being voted in mandated LTNs and CPZ because local residents had expressed their support on the doorstep for those measures. It is they who have spun their success at the local elections as evidence of a vote in favour. So presumably you also disagree with them? And no, as I have also said, no vote at that time could ever just be about LTNs.

The fact remains, you cannot claim a massive mandate for something that was not mentioned in the manifesto.

Since when have PSPOs and CEOs and volunteers been run by the MET? Community Police officers walk around the local area on bike or foot, easy for them to interact with those exhibiting inappropriate cycling behaviour or with volunteers out with speed guns, in the course of their rounds. You seem to be labouring incredibly hard in your efforts to try to score the odd point.

It is stretching things to suggest you win an election on an issue that you never mention. The notion that a vote for Southwark Labour was a massive all round thumbs up for LTNs and borough wide CPZ is pure spin.

I don't agree. If it was such a big vote winner it would have been centre and front in the manifesto, along with borough wide CPZ. I think lots of people did want improvements in trains and buses, which they flagged. You cannot argue people voted for something that was not even mentioned.

Community police on the beat, so at certain points already in situ, volunteers, and PSPOS/ CEOs, the latter a maybe because further scrutiny as to parameters of PSPO required. However, CEOs will be very well resourced, so it makes sense for them to be involved in policing. Can you indicate what you were paraphrasing with "oh some of those people should".

Chickster, your repeated attempts to discombobulate and derail are sweet but not very effective. Can you please point out where I have used the exact phrase "oh some of those people should" ?

No, but they do apply to inappropriately souped up e-bikes and while the volunteers are at it they could film or call out other inappropriate cycling behaviour. The odd visit by a a local community officer on their rounds would also help.

No, local LTNs and borough wide CPZ were left out of the Southwark Labour manifesto, which is odd if it was a central reason for them being voted back in. On the contrary, given feelings at the time about any Tory and since LTNs and CPZ were missing from Labour manifesto plans there was no way to know a vote for Labour was a vote for LTNs. We are told there were chats on doorsteps, but no record of that, just spin. What was emphasised in the manifesto was how hard they would work to improve train services, as well as buses. Precisely what has been achieved thus far? Remember, that was a manifesto promise.

Indeed, why not or some of the volunteer groups who monitor cars with speed guns could extend it to cycling as well. Posted 2 hours ago East Dulwich Mr Chicken said: "I can't find it: I mean specifically what would you stop or reduce policing of to free up officers of some description to police cyclists". I know you get things mixed up and miss detail but even you must know the word 'policing' is not exclusive to a police force. Look again at my earlier replies.

I addressed policing earlier in the thread in response to Ex. Sorry you missed that.

But, you keep generalising, truly I am only interested in the local picture. ED has some very large hills. We are told well get an e-bike but then there is the problem of where to keep that, both when out and about (bike theft is on the rise and they are expensive) and in the house. Those things are heavy. Then it's well use a hire e-bike. They are also heavy and cumbersome. I understand for many they may work well but not for all.

I always thought Malmo was in Sweden. Anyhow, it is flat, very flaaaat. You can bear cycling in most weathers but hills. Unless you are young and very fit, Dog Kennel or Forest Hill are going to present a bit of an obstacle, add in cold, grey days with torrential rain and... Cannot really compare.

Mal, it may surprise you to know so have I, in ED and all the way into central London. There has always been the occasional bad behaviour; I am not sure I would describe it as 'hassling' pedestrians, which implies some sort of deliberate antagonism. But, 'cycling carelessly', 'without due care', 'being locked in a bit of a cycling bubble', while on the pavement, I am seeing more of. I would concede that many of those behaviours occur elsewhere (pedestrians looking at tech and paying zero attention, car drivers scandalously doing similar etc.. On pavements I do feel very strongly that pedestrians must come first. The bikes everywhere culture is new and a developing one, we have one way or another to get appropriate etiquette down and largely adhered to. Forgive me, but old time cyclists like you are not the case at issue here. This is the case of people that want to get from a-z as quickly as possible, dump and go. It is not a hobby or a passion.

Not angry but simply recognising we are entering new territory, serried ranks of hire e-bikes and scooters are new. Infrastructure is changing at pace. To even make a link between what is happening now and what you experienced 20 years ago is pointless. I cited some research in another thread (not sure I can find it again) that was done I think in Amsterdam and that indicated vulnerable sections of society( elderly, less mobile, disabled) felt increasingly threatened and alienated both by driver and cyclist behaviour. Part of that was cycling on pavements. If cyclists feel unable to cycle on roads ( I fail to see why if a residential side street) then surely on busy pavements they should simply dismount and walk until they can get onto the road or a cycle path? Maybe we should re-criminalise cycling on non designated pavements.

So shall we have a little accuracy- detail is not Chick's forte, it seems. I referred to a borough-wide CPZ, do you see the difference between that and just CPZ Chicken? To explain, borough-wide qualifies the type of CPZ. Not all CPZs are the same. Some may be active for only a few hours, others all day. I hope that is clear? Spartacus referred to a "golden panacea" not, as you said "magic panacea". The two arguably have slightly different meanings...you may not have noticed that. So can you please stop misquoting and lying about what other posters are saying and calm down a bit? You seem almost hysterical, what with your shouting in caps and bold.

Apparently Nunhead has very clean air. It is poorly served by public transport. There is no current issue with parking, suggesting the volume of cars is not that great. I won't address your third paragraph as it is rather revealing about the sort of individual you are.

You are getting very shouty and excitable today Mr Chicken. I think we can possibly take a look at PSPOS and CEOs. I know Ex does not agree but the money and resources are/will be there and it seems reasonable to allocate some of that to Equal streets and better managing cycling behaviour.

Your are working from the premise that a borough-wide CPZ is necessary and therefore an alternative 'must be found'. We do not agree on the premise.

But there are already a range of fines and other punitive measures in regard to car drivers. Poor driving has repeatedly been called out by anti LTN and CPZ posters on this forum (speeding on Barry road for instance). If your aim is to increase cycling so it becomes the primary transport choice and more dominant on roads and paths, then surely we have to also look at ways to manage bad/risky cycling behaviour? Why would you have a problem with that?