first mate

But why haven't Cllrs McAsh and Rose clearly stated that they are legally obliged to impose borough wide CPZ and that the matter is essentially out of their hands? It seems very odd, given the strength of feeling.

You may have a point, but if that is the case, why has it not been stated by Cllr McAsh. If it were a decision that in effect had been imposed, as you seem to suggest, I have little doubt Cllrs would be making it very clear that the matter was out of their hands and not, as McAsh did and an assembly meeting, state that consultation had taken place and therefore moves were mandated?

Right, we are clear, you think cycling on pavements is a great idea and feel there are few hazards involved other than being a bit "annoying". Others disagree. One view is as cycling increases, more people take risks in the way they cycle ( see Rocket's post re Barbyonabike) and that includes careless cycling on pavements, not to mention littering and dumping of hire bikes. Simply trying to divert the thread, as you seem to be doing, is not addressing an issue that is starting to surface. One small thought, as already mentioned, should adult cyclists accompanying small children cycling on the pavements, always dismount and walk with them?

Have just read the foreword. Not persuasive. Again citing some dubious supporting stats. The bit that riles is 'creating green spaces'; by actively licensing off sections of park for months on end, they are doing the opposite and ungreening the borough.

I would say, once drivers are wise to a camera the same is true all over. Cameras probably only catch out drivers who are unaware or where they are obscured. The way round that would be to keep changing where the cameras are, but doubt that is technically possible. I am all for fining drivers who wantonly speed on a regular basis. Everyone sometimes slips over the limit by a bit.

You have stated your opinion. Others disagree about that one instant. Back to the thread, if tots are cycling on the pavement, which I understand, is it better for parents to dismount and accompany them while they are on pavements with pedestrians etc.. Obviously by this I mean pavemnets that do not have dedicated cycleways.

It was an accident, the driver had a serious medical event. This has no real relevance to the subject of cycling on pavements.

@AylwardsS There may be some areas over the Nunhead side. On the ED side there was a very large area that used to be allowed to grow each year but since Gala set up it is mowed and doubt much survives after a month of heavy machinery etc

Fair point but the fact that the additional clutter is being made by hire bikes that are meant to augment and promote 'active travel' does put a different gloss on the problem. Councils are using equality and social justice to promote these schemes so must address anything they support that simultaneously reduces equality of access and movement for vulnerable sections of society, even if they are a minority.

A parklet is a little area of green or planting that is put in the street, Around about the footprint of a couple of cars or bike hangar. The idea is that you can have a bench and sit there and chat to friends and enjoy 'nature' etc.. As we have just heard, it rarely ends up like that as the council cannot afford to upkeep parks let alone parklets. I don't know about anyone else but not once have I seen anyone sitting and resting or chatting on the parklet benches near me. On the subject of parks, while the council want to make mini parks in our streets, they also aim to turn our beautiful, large areas of already green park into events spaces for hire, causing flora and fauna to be trashed every year by thousands of revellers. This is the council's topsy turvy outlook on how to be green and save the climate. Underpinning it all of course is money, money, money.

Quite right. I just hope your signatories are broadly from within the local communities affected and not mobilisation of LCC members and similar groups all around London.

One of my greatest concerns is there is no mandate, they are literally ignoring a majority of objectors in parts of the borough. I feel uncomfortable with a local government that overrides the wishes of the electorate. James McAsh came up with a bizarre rationale that because somewhere like Nunhead has cleaner air and is more well off they must pay permits because they will be polluting other parts of the borough that have fewer car owners that do pay for permits but have less clean air!? He disregards PTAL scores. So he is arguing that a part of the borough with more car owners has cleaner air than a part that doesn't? He is also assuming that Nunhead car owners make the bulk of their car journeys into the North of the borough. In terms of the rationale in favour of CPZ, I have never seen the goal posts change so quickly.

They want to make 'parklets' while at the same time moving forward on hiring out our actual parks for polluting, commercial large scale events for many weeks of high summer. So green!

How is it 'fair' to charge those with access to much better transport networks but who also want a car the same as those who live in areas with low PTAL scores and therefore need a car? In ED the rationale for CPZ was for the people who had bought houses next to the train station and because of commuter parking were unable to park as near their homes as they'd like. Cllr McAsh and Rose obviously feel they now have a trump card with the social justice line and it gives them carte blanche. It is of course a nonsense. This is about a revenue stream for the council.

I get incredibly frustrated with drivers that don't or won't adhere to 20 mph or other speed limits. No excuse for it. I grant that it takes a bit more concentration when going up or down steep hills but really not so much to ask.

Thanks Legal. We can expect much, much more of this. Southwark is now the provider of hangars in the borough so it will be interesting to see how the management and maintenance side of that works. Do you know if there is a transcript for the council meeting the other night as posted on YouTube? The one where answers on really key topics, like whether there is a mandate for borough wide CPZ, were unintelligible?

You are replying to CPR by referring to something else. He referenced CPZ not Road Tax. Of course everyone should pay for use of roads, everyone benefits from them, whether cycling, use of Ubers or club cars or delivery of goods you buy. As you know, the list of benefits is long. Car users do however have to pay an extra tax each year by way of vehicle licensing and that money does go to the Exchequer for redistribution. Maybe some of it gets reallocated to DT, that is a govt decision. Car users also pay toll fees which, congestion charges and some pay ULEZ. The combination of CPZ and PCN raises a huge amount of money for the Council.

Then do have a word with some of your fellow campaigners as many do seem to own cars or request use of them. Of course, when they need one it is clearly valid and vital. As I said before, I assume you never ever use a car. I also assume that you are similarly outraged and offended by myriad other aspects of daily life, many of which are viewed as necessary.

I really hope someone is taking very detailed notes on responses.

I have tried to watch this. What a very fortunate coincidence for the scrutiny commission that the sound is so very bad on the reply about Jane Goodman's antics, as well as James McAsh on whether the Movement Plan was in fact a consultation, as asserted, mandating borough- wide CPZ. Again, democracy not in action. What is the point of these videos if the sound is so muffled you cannot make out councillor replies. Apparently, a speaker was not plugged in properly. Actually this seems such a convenient omission/ mistake/ failure of equipment on key questions that I wonder if there are verbatim transcripts of what was said?

Heartblock, I think 2 months was mentioned re his response to OD on data etc.. Legal alien has helpfully posted a link to last night's scrutiny session. I haven't watched it yet but would think there might be something of interest in there. I also suspect the social justice line is a great get out of jail tactic. There may be admissions of reneging on former promises, lack of data etc.. but all permitted as this is now about social justice and the moral high ground. My own view is there is also a strong relationship between the democratic process and social justice and it is paternalistic to have your elected representative suddenly change message and tack on the basis they have decided it is for your/the greater good.

Where are you getting this 95% figure from? Which streets are we talking about? All streets in the UK, all in London, in Southwark or just in Nunhead and ED? Who are you to define what people's needs are? For instance, do you fly, do you wear leather, do you eat meat and or processed foods, do you use gas central heating or use a wood burner, wear non-sustainable clothing..., what about a loft conversion or a side return? Obviously you don't own a car but I think to make a direct comparison between cars and smoking is ludicrous.

How can you possibly be so sure? People have all sorts of responsibilities you are seemingly not aware of. But I feel no need to persuade you as you clearly have made your mind up that these are all just 'excuses', all car users are lazy etc.. I also think that there are many, many aspects of modern life that are arguably a 'kick in the teeth to our children' but there is this myopia about car use with too much emphasis on the stick and little on the carrot.

Jolly good for you. If your lifestyle and responsibilities are such that you can go completely car free then that is marvellous. For many life without the use of a car can become immensely stressful and rental cars are not necessarily the solution. I posted a link to some interesting info on that elsewhere. I dislike the fact that borough wide CPZ will make the lives of some residents much more difficult and costly. I also dislike the notion of charging Blue Badge holders. Most of all, I dislike the slippery and Machiavellian approach to CPZ by this council, who have no mandate to impose borough wide permits and who seem to have told some rather large porkies when asked for information, at various points. This is important in terms of the democratic process.

I'm afraid life can just be a bit more complicated for some and a car may not be used every day or even every week but is required. Sometimes rental cars can fill the gap but not always. Part of the issue can be relatives who need more care or who do not live on the doorstep. Public transport does not always fill that gap either. This is not about 'convenience'.