first mate

Ilo said "Agree - but in a world of limited resources, there should be a risk based approach to identifying and mitigating possible danger." And hence the starting point of this thread....many more cyclists on pavements.

Yes, Labour need to have a rethink. Cllr McAsh strikes me as politically quite astute (changing his strapline from marxist to socialist) and possibly rather ambitious. Still time to change the current local agenda.

There are so many areas of life where more education may be required. Littering is one example. Why is is it that up and down the country there is so much litter on city streets, in parks and on pavements? I never quite understand the seeming compulsion to just discard, wherever you happen to be standing or sitting, once used. Is it lack of education or just laziness or something to do with our national psyche?

Barry Road is a dangerous road and I regularly see people driving like maniacs. Perhaps a couple of pedestrian crossings would help? I take the points on speed humps and on cameras.

This should be lounged as premise not ED specific.

Indeed, the last point could be a real unintended consequence and possibly one that is not great for the environment. Another issue and potential unintended consequence, involves council plans to repurpose public space by allocating more of it to club and hire car schemes. There is research that indicates this encourages a demographic who might not have owned a car or driven much before to now consider driving as a more viable option, thereby increasing the range of people who use cars.

How do you know the vehicle being used was wholly unsuitable? Unless you have the inside track on the owner's life you cannot possibly know that. It is simply your opinion based on assumptions.

Until there is a rationale for why councillors have kept completely silent about an alleged requirement in law to impose a borough-wide CPZ, I am not inclined to believe it either. A misunderstanding, perhaps...

Oh come on, if it is, as you state, a matter of law they will have known ages ago. So, I ask again, if it is the case that the council must by law now impose a borough wide CPZ why have councillors not said? It honestly makes no sense. Most politicans will play the blame game and pass the buck on unpopular decisions if they can. It highly unlikely that this legal aspect would not have been mentioned at the recent scrutiny committee session or assembly, where CPZ was discussed in some detail.

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?