first mate

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?

I rather agree, and just trying to keep this thread on subject.

McAsh did seem promising and a much more switched on, political animal than Cllr Rose. We can only hope he finds a way to 'fix' the LTN nonsense.

Spot on Heartblock. I'd take your view over that of certain other posters any day. The idea that the masses voted for LTNs at the last council elections is nonsense. LTNs were not even mentioned in the manifesto. Post covid, not many could stomach the thought of voting Tory, that even trounced my own view of what the council were and have done with LTNs. Some things are more important, but the current incumbents have not covered themselves in glory and the lack of democratic process has certainly lessened my respect for them as well as trust.

By 'we' you now feel you speak for all those who are disabled Mal?

Mr Chicken, i don't know if you live in ED or not but objection has always been to LTNs in this area. Even Sadiq Khan is reported as saying some LTNs work and some don't. There is strong feeling that local ED LTNs are not producing the benefits stated, especially for those living on boundary roads. Cllr McAsh has agreed to look into the data but has asked for a number of months to do that, suggesting that this is not just a courtesy as has been suggested elsewhere. You keep very deliberately trying to move discussion around LTNs into one of generalisations which does little to suggest you understand the local situation. Your attempts at humour are also poor and clearly aim to ridicule and undermine anyone who 'dares' query the pro LTN line. A number of pro LTN posters seem to use this as a tactic, so one wonders if you are comparing notes?

Mmmhmmmuhhh, There are doubts about the validity of data used to support the alleged 'success' of local LTNs. In fact, if you remember, Cllr McAsh has agreed to look into this? Now if the data was as cast iron as you suggest I doubt he'd waste his time. Hmmmm?

The pretty streets line is unconvincing. Dumped Lime bikes and scooters as well a various chained two wheel vehicles are not pretty. Bike hangars sre ugly. Club cars and EVs are no more visually appealing than others.

The problem is the premise that LTNs are equitable and fair- quite clearly they are not. The starting point is deeply flawed. It is a totally machiavellian approach.

Bic Basher said: "The fact you think I'm a Tory is hilarious. Now how about some discussion about the topic instead of using the same sardonic humour you and Mal usually provide." Bic, good point Mal and Mr C are doing a great job taking this thread way of course, back to thread saboteur mode. Can you please stick to the thread subject matter. As you say Bic, if LTNs were working so very well we'd have no need for CPZ to 'drive people out of their cars'.

You have hit the nail on the head. What it needs most of all is transparent and open dialogue between Council and communities they serve. That is just not happening, instead we have manipulation and paternalism.

Abbreviated as in hurry. SL= Southwark Labour. My concern is with local implementation and a borough -wide CPZ, not national. So referring to local council manifesto of 2022 and their pledges. Maybe check before you ask about manifesto content to make a point?