first mate

They don't accept existing conclusions because they assert data is missing and therefore re-evaluation is required. This is pretty standard stuff and no mystery to it. As I said, were Cllr McAsh sure they were incorrect about missing data I doubt he would waste time looking into it.

Great ciggie analogy Spartacus, perfectly illustrating unintended consequences of well intentioned interventions. As we know, vaping now under major scrutiny and possibly not the safe option it was meant to be.

If, as the name indicates, OD are interested in the impact of local LTNs and have asked for data only around that, that certainly does not imply they accept all the other research. That is quite a leap; because I don't focus on and question all your research output on a subject you can safely conclude I accept it!? OD assert the local data is incomplete and therefore results not necessarily valid. Cllr McAsh is to look into this, something I doubt he would do if it was the open and shut case you suggest.

Don't know how you concluded that? Who is "they"? Any of us might support the idea of LTNs in principle, who would choose congested streets over those that are not? However, success varies according to area. Thus far, the negative aspects of local LTNs are being written off as either lies, imaginary, cognitive biases or driven by a political agenda. Holes in data have been identified by OD, thus far Cllr McAsh has not denied this is the case. Many of us look forward to his response.

What has been asked for is data specific to the ED area. Citing research that draws on other boroughs, other counties and even other countries does not really help persuade, especially when that data contradicts what some are experiencing. It has been said that some LTNs seem to work well while others don't. The missing local data that OD has asked for and which Cllr McAsh has said he will look into should give a much more accurate picture of what is going on locally.

In your view EA, shared by some, and which you are of course entitled to voice. However, many do not agree with you and there lies the rub. Presumably that is why Cllr McAsh decided to meet with OD.

It was certainly news to me that Cllr McAsh had met with One Dulwich. I am interested to hear what his responses are to the various questions raised and will look here for that update. I am sure we can all agree that for LTNs to work locally they have to benefit all, not just a few.

There is absolutely no obstacle to anyone posting a thread on a subject of interest. If others are similarly interested they will respond; that is democracy. Why not lead by example JJ and start a thread on a compelling subject that you feel is not being addressed and start a stimulating discussion? As P68 says, there are threads on various aspects of traffic and road infrastructure because these things seriously affect the lives of residents. Anyway, back on thread, did Cllr McAsh say where he would respond in two months time? Will he email One Dulwich or meet up with them again?

Why are certain posters so very desperate to shut this down...again? As Rockets said, so long as some residents have an issue with local LTNs that impact them negatively a thread will keep appearing because this is a local forum. You are not being forced to read the thread so kindly stop trying to censor others. I am also heartened that Cllr McAsh met with One Dulwich. Thank you Rockets for posting on this. Admin please look out for deliberate attempts by certain posters with form to get this new thread lounged. FWIW I am an ED resident with no ties to One Dulwich.

Additionally, the relationship between Cabinet member for roads and TFL is perhaps not conducive to constructive dialogue.

Had no idea they were that heavy; not so easy to move around unless unlocked then. I say this because it has been suggested elsewhere that good citizens should simply move bikes left blocking paths etc... to somewhere more appropriate.

I think there is an element of decreasing accountability. For instance, Cllr McAsh gave his word that only ED streets that wanted CPZ would get CPZ. Quite how this will sit with Cllr Rose' announcement in the last scrutiny session of a borough-wide rollout of CPZ, remains to be seen. With these apparent contradictions in mind, it is little wonder Cllrs prefer not to engage with local forums.

I doubt anyone would spread poo around as a form of protest? It is not something normally used by protestors, is it? The only place I know of associated with 'protest poo' is HM's prisons? Either way, it is an extremely anti-social, disgraceful thing to do and whatever the motivation - if there is any at all- to do this close to a school is unpardonable.

Read again what you wrote and what I responded to below, though your bizarre point that I must read other things on a forum stands, obviously... Mr Chicken said : "Yeah continuously dragging Lycra into the conversation is just "a bit of mockery" and not a peculiar obsession. Sure thing! Though I'm a bit unclear as to what you want to mock a group based on their clothing. Do you extend that to other groups like Boris Johnson does?" And, to be completely clear, the lycra comment you seem so hot under the collar about by was not even made by me. Your feathers seem truly ruffled today Mr C.

Oh sorry, were you trying to mock something or someone? All I read was your attempt to conflate another poster's comments on lycra with Boris Johnsons's extremely offensive comments about the attire of some Muslim Women. Was the latter what you meant by "light mockery"? Quite how you got to that is not clear. You are the one going for the low blows.

Just as another poster tried to use the issue of mental illness to underpin their point in a very inappropriate fashion, you have now chosen the serious issue of racism as a mechanism for what you call a bit of light hearted banter in an attempt to score points. As you observe, the sort of thing big dog would do. If the cap fits chicken!

Mr Chicken, mocking some cyclists for wearing lycra does not make you a racist, as you have tried to infer. Another hysterical leap to score points. To even go there suggests you are really scraping the barrel.

The mental health 'advice' was really clumsy, on so many levels. You say you get obsessed by some things but that you don't feel anger or hatred while insisting that others do feel anger, to the point they need help. Just because you and Mr C get wound up about negative comments calling out some cyclists, some cycling behaviour or a bit of mockery based on what a small subset of cyclists wear, doesn't make it hate, anger or obsession. It is just your view, perhaps even a little bit of projection.

This latest tactic to try to paint anyone that voices objections to local LTNs or makes a negative observation about some cyclists, as having mental health problems is pretty dire. How much lower do you want to go to try to score a point?! The only one 'spewing hatred' is you.

I think that's because the aim is to deflect and deny.

I think it is going to be a very frustrating transition period, probably for the council too and Cllr Williams' letter to Lime shows they are all too aware. The problem is it all looks a great idea on paper ( and helps the council tick off points on its Movement Plan) but human behaviour gets in the way. There is probably enough information on how the e-bike schemes have bedded in elsewhere, including other countries, to have meant some of the current issues could have been anticipated and maybe better planned for. Do we know if at the end of the trial period next year there will be any sort of consultation?

In the council report it says e-bikes are on trial in Southwark until May 2024; the e-scooter trial is across all London. They will be extending parking bays across the whole borough but claimed in the report that (at that point) parking was not an issue. They aim to introduce cargo bikes for hire. This is all to meet the mission points in their 2020 Movement plan, but I do not remember that being mentioned in their most recent manifesto. I cannot recall any sort of consultation on any of this, can anyone else?

Mal, did you intervene to get Cllr Williams to write the letter? I cannot see why or on what grounds anyone would give it a thumbs down?!

Thanks Ed pete, it'll be interesting to see what impact this has.

"No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess." EarlA I don't know if you live in ED but, if you do, I find it hard to believe you have not seen anyone cycling on the pavement, including on an e-bike? Remember, this is about ED, not e-bikes in general. Rather than fall back on your cognitive biases line, how about a solution? If use of e-bikes is on the increase ( with Council support) how are likely breaches like riding bikes of any sort on pavements without dedicated cycle lanes to be 'policed' and 'penalised'?