first mate

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'?

I disagree. There are clear speed limits in place and therefore absolutely no reason for speeding ( people speed in Devon too and country roads are notoriously dangerous). Why the Council won't put a camera in on such a well used road, when they can do it elsewhere, is not clear. Perhaps someone has the answer?

Hoping to get an answer to this. I should also add that for me at least, this is not a debate about LTNs in general. I appreciate that general data will be used to support the idea that they work locally. However, my interest is in being persuaded that local LTNs are beneficial to all ED residents equally.

With a view to avoiding another lounging and to get the thread back on track, is there any sort of update on the above?

As a cyclist I simply say what I see and experience. Most of the so-called anti-cyclists on here also cycle. I think trying to frame the experiences of others as "spewing anti-cyclist hate" is OTT. You cannot make genuine issues just disappear by telling others to shut up and put up or, as others have done, advise those who disagree with you to seek intervention for mental health problems.

I've seen them ridden on the pavement and I am pretty certain I am not alone in that so I think the title is fair.

In terms of music Gala definitely better, it is a music festival and PITP is not. If it were literally only a matter of three days that Gala caused upheaval and sectioning off of the park, I doubt there would be the objections there have been. It is the matter of huge fences, lack of access, a change to the feel of the park for a month in the best weeks of summer that is the problem. As Fishboy also mentioned, weeks of generator noise and floodlights is just not acceptable or ecologically friendly.

https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=534795&northing=175338&map=SurfaceWater This is from Environment Agency. I think the flood element is genuine but the sudden need to fell mature, healthy trees is very iffy. Friends of Peckham Rye are furious and have published a notice to say they were not consulted about the tree felling aspect despite being a stakeholder. They say the works are being arranged to best suit the contractor. Another view might be, as Penguin suggested earlier, removing trees creates more event space for the future. Is this another Cllr Rose 'special'?!

I wonder what the motivation is for all this? Southwark is fiercely protective of trees, including street trees, it makes no sense. I'm not sure I buy the access point. If you read through plans for this work there is a huge amount about protecting trees and tree roots. This 'access' issue seems to have snuck in last minute.

Yep, a new low, using the serious issue of mental health to try to score points in some way. Pretty revealing really.

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/C956F09DB0E8BEB9518C7093109A814E/19_AP_5692-SOUTH_BUND_PROPOSED-843280.jpg This is all I can find, which dates back to 2020. Much is made of tree protection. Are the new plans a change to this https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/59EAB2329129709EABAAD4A0EF4335BF/pdf/19_AP_5692-COMMITTEE_REPORT-3651037.pdf

Tried to get through on the link and got a server error message. Anyone else having same issue? There may be very compelling reasons for doing this work now but what are they exactly? That area has always been a bit marshy but it has never been a problem that I am aware of. Won't felling trees increase the drainage issue in that roots suck up water? Very happy to learn more from those in the know.