first mate

Yes, we can only hope that the Nunhead campaign is emboldened by this.

I thought this was quite interesting, in terms of souping up an e-bike. How are people getting around this limit? In the real world, there are a lot of ways around the speed limit and some tricks that people are using that don’t stick within the laws. So what are some ways people are getting around the UK e-bike speed laws? Hacking the speed controller – One thing that a lot of e-bike owners do is to use some kind of hack to get their bike to exceed the speed limit. Going faster outside of busy city roads – Another common thing you’ll read on the e-bike forums and places like Reddit is that riders stick to the speed in cities but exceed it once they’re out on roads. Ride normally and avoiding attention – One common opinion is that if you ride sensibly, as you would on any bike, it’s highly unlikely you will be pulled over. Using a Cycle Analyst – With this device you can have a really powerful e-bike of say 1000 Watts but set a limit to it of 250 Watts. At the press of a button, you can quickly reduce your output from the illegal (but speedy) 1000 down to the legally allowed 250. Overclocking the motor to get more out of it – A little-known secret about e-bike motors is that they can actually push out a lot more power than what they’re intended for. Most of the 250 Watt motors built in China can actually give out 500 Watts if you know how to do it. What the motor is officially ‘rated’ as is often far less than what it’s capable of. Do the police know what to look for? Another hot and controversial topic is the question as to whether or not a regular police officer would be able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and one that was 500 Watts instead of 250 Watts. Or even be able to spot a power-assisted bike at all (some are not as obvious as others). Many believe that they would need special training and knowledge to be able to tell if an e-biker was breaking the law or not. During our research for this article, it was hard to find many examples of people being pulled over and asked anything by the police about their e-bike. Realistically, the police have a lot on their plates and e-bikes are probably not a priority. And it’s not likely they would know what to look for without training. That being said, you might get unlucky and be pulled over by someone whose hobby is e-bikes and they’d know straight away if you were using one of the above tricks to get over the legal limits.

A number of streets in ED today with Lime bikes scattered untidily on the pavement or road. A number seemed to have fallen over. Another road in Nunhead has a freshly painted bay but a number of bikes were left strewn outside of the designated drop off point.

In this link at around 18:17 Cllr Rose outlines her plan to increase hire bikes but especially e-bikes and scooters, across the borough. There will be increased docking but also dockless ( "curated", whatever that means). Also see 26:48 on dockless trials. Perhaps this is the reasons for the sudden influx of Lime bikes. They have been given the green light by the Council.

1st para: I disagree. 2nd para: Not sure what point you are trying to make? The issue is about the potential for tension between cyclists and pedestrians, as demonstrated in Amsterdam and on a smaller scale in Dulwich Village Square. 3rd para: The issue is about the tension between cyclists and pedestrians; you have shifted the goalposts by making it about cars. 4th para: souped up e-bikes are e-bikes, nonetheless. Does the article I linked to call them illegal motorbikes? No. The relevance is that our council want to increase both bike and e-bike use. As I said earlier, are you really so sure we won't get similar problems over here? Today I saw someone on an e-bike on Barry Road going like the clappers. I doubt he is unique and imagine we'll see more of this sort of behaviour as more people take to e-bikes. Carry on twisting and turning. I'll leave you to it and leave you to have the last word too, as I am fairly sure you'll be unable to resist 😉

Hmm, nice try Mr C. I was not defending points but using links to elaborate and illustrate. The first link was to illustrate my first point - that in the inner sections of Amsterdam bicycles are becoming a problem ("nuisance") and there are tensions between the needs of pedestrians and those of cyclists. The second link illustrated a further issue to do with souped up e-bikes. I think the only person trying to move goalposts is you. I agree impossible to even attempt a sensible conversation, but I am really not convinced you want one.

It does look that way. And Malumbu, please stop. It is clear what you are up to.

What I actually said: "Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam" As you well know, I posted two links: 1. about issues with bicycles/ cycling and pedestrians in Amsterdam 2. a second link specifically about issues with souped up e-bikes in Amsterdam Hope that helps.

Mr C "proliferation of E bikes. See the "E2 in there. This is not, as you claimed "bicycles are a nuisance", this is about what are effectively unlicensed motorcycles. Parleying that into "bicycles are a nuisance" is disingenuous to say the least. The other link does also not say what you seem to think it says". Another wilful misrepresentation of a post by the feathered one- at least I don't accuse you of putting words into my mouth! To correct you, I mentioned both bicycles and e-bikes and supplied a link for each. Are you really suggesting that speeding e-bikes and souped up e-bikes are not likely to become an issue over here too? I think the link about the increasing tension between cyclists and pedestrians in inner Amsterdam says exactly what I think it says. My point about the Dulwich Village square was to show a small scale version of that same tension. Unlike you, I do cycle... a lot. My point was that, in my experience, other more reckless and speed orientated cyclists can present as much of a hazard as cars. Perhaps when you start cycling you will find the same.

Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/amsterdam-crackdown-souped-up-e-bikes-dangerous-streets In terms of the e-bikes, I think it is only a matter of time before we get the same issue here. We live in a 'fast' city. Our 'communities' are fragmented, we don't have everything we need within walking distance; that is just the way our western lifestyle has evolved. You cannot undo all that in the blink of an eye. As we know, the cycling pressure groups are not keen on the Dulwich Village junction ('square') being pedestrian only, as they would have to dismount and cannot walk in cycling shoes! I do for the most part cycle. I am much more fearful of large vehicles like buses but also of cars, however other cyclists can also be a problem, especially those cycling at top speed (in early threads a cycling propagandist castigated me for suggesting mobility scooters be allowed on cycleways, as this would slow cyclists like him down).

And yet, as you so helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, despite this long history of transport change Amsterdam has nearly the same level of cars as we do in Southwark. Moreover, there are moves to now ban cycling from large sections of the Dutch city, as bicycles too are deemed a nuisance and safety issue. Is this what you envisage here?

The council have said they want more hire e-bikes. They are very aware of the issues associated with the increase but seem to be turning a blind eye. They just want to tick their green credential boxes. One plan is to have lots of hire bike hangars on the road. In my view, that will not work. Many hire e-bike users seem to want to dump and go. They will not want the hassle of putting the bike away in a hangar. Failing that, just expect more hire e-bikes to be left willy nilly on the road or on pavements. As the warm weather kicks in this will become much more of an annoying issue.

Yep, saw this. Straight out of the pro LTN lobby playbook...all the usual disclaimers.

Charles Martel said: "There is an obvious argument for a CPZ in areas where there are problems caused by people coming from outside the area wanting to park, however this was obviously not the case in most of East Dulwich. Is it likely that people will think it is in Nunhead? As residents will just buy permits the CPZ will do nothing to reduce resident parking. Despite the fact that 70% of Southwark is supposedly covered by CPZs already that 70% has not become the car free utopia that some seem ideologically fixated on creating. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of car owners vs. the rest of society that the council wants to lay. All of my neighbours who cycle to work also own cars, as do most of the ones who use public transport or walk." Note the comment about many who cycle or use active travel also own cars. Many who cycle also admit to having to make a number of journeys a year by car (Malumbu). On another thread a poster commented that car ownership in the long-term cycling utopia of Amsterdam is only slightly less than in Southwark, despite pervasive CPZ.

Can anyone reveal the data source for the assertion that there has been a "rapid increase in 2 car ownership in Nunhead and East Dulwich"?

In the Environment and community engagement scrutiny session (link posted earlier) Cllr Rose talked about the need to better identify gaps in air quality data to get a more nuanced picture and understand where to place monitoring. They are also looking at air quality text alerts to help residents make choices about times and routes of travel etc.

If only any councillors were even partly active on this forum!

Has anyone done the calculations on average cost to a one car household after imposition of a CPZ. That is residents permit, visitors short stay permit and then all day permits for building/ maintenance work? If, as was suggested at the recent council scrutiny session, storage hangars will now be placed on streets for private hire companies, what will be the price of those? Will there be larger hangars to house private cargo bikes...at what cost? I anticipate a future where instead of private cars, much of the street scape will be given over to metal bike hangars and hire cars. If private car ownership dwindles to nothing, the need for hire fleets will probably rise and they will have to be kept on street to be accessible. If and when private car ownership dwindles expect there to be increasing charges for on street bike storage, the massive loss of revenue will have to be plugged somehow.

In response to the OP, I think that you need to carefully scrutinise all and any reasons given for the need to impose CPZ on Nunhead. You'll probably be given data on emissions which, if the ED experience is anything to go by, are dodgy ( see Heartblock's posts). I saw an assertion on this thread that there has been a massive rise in two car ownership in Nunhead, and this has led to parking pressure on some streets. No idea if this is true or source for that info. You may find Cllrs spending a lot of time speaking to any residents that do want CPZ. Ensure your voices are heard too. Hold your Cllrs to account. If the subject is under discussion on the Nunhead Forum, look for a sudden influx of new posters who are pro CPZ. They may well not be local residents but part of organisations who want CPZ.

Yes, there does seem to be a sudden resurgence in trolling and of certain posters, and clear efforts to effect lounging of any threads associated with threads on CPZ, LTNs, parking. I wonder why now? I also saw on the Nunhead thread on CPZ a resurrection of the 'frightened and cowed residents desperately in want of CPZ but too scared to say so' line. They ( if they actually exist at all) are already well represented as S'wark are set on a mission of borough wide CPZ and consultation is not public, so 'scared residents' just seems like another dubious tactic. It reminds me of the early days of ED CPZ when we were told residents were being stalked daily for parking slots by commuters. We also had extremely busy posters like pro cycling Rendel Harris (who disappeared pretty much once ED CPZ consultation was effected). I also feel that the pro LTN/ CPZ narrative is shifting from pollution and more to the use of space for free by cars, when that space could be better used for other things. At the scrutiny session Cllr Rose used almost identical phrasing to that recently trotted out on this forum. In the recent scrutiny session, there were also indications that S'wark will soon be going after wood burning stoves, gas hobs and even gas boilers...if they can.

Heartblock, Some damning statistics there. Is this not something our councillor James McAsh can clarify, especially as he is now has the climate change portfolio?

ED forum version of "I did not have sex with that woman". Or, do we have our very own forum Trump? Either way, this is a deflection game. I'm off back to the main threads.

Interesting. What is the thinking around Cllr Rose? Why might she not be a Cllr in October?

Smashing examples of circumlocution, convolution and obfuscation. Still no answer to Rockets' and Spartacus' rather straightforward question.

Yes indeed and as I keep saying, while 'saving the planet' by imposing ever increasing fees for owning any sort of car, the council are simultaneously giving over key areas of park land for polluting events, complete with generators and land churning vehicles. On top of this, attendees can be picked up and dropped off by car, with dedicated points so to do. Go figure! You'd have thought any sort of journey by car would be discouraged. But, in this case, they are making it easier. There is only one way to make any sense of these contradictory 'green' policies and that is revenue for the council.