first mate

Ask your councillor, they should advise.

Malumbu, please give it a break. You have made accusations of passive aggressive behaviour, so why not follow your own advice? It is disingenuous to suggest that if you disagree with council led events that really you should not voice concern but instead wait to stand for election. It does at times feel as though there is a concerted effort by those closely involved with council supported agendas to shut down debate. There is a perceived issue with consultation with the council, where many feel the approach is partial and undemocratic. The forum is one place where frustrations and views can be aired/vented and councillors challenged. Of course, councillors would prefer us to contact them via private email or via a council ?consultation? exercise, but there are doubts over scrutiny and oversight. Some posters do not live directly in the area represented by the councillor who chose to come on this forum, but then neither do you, yet you still feel you have the right to comment and participate? If I have understood, you say you live in Lewisham? Apologies if that is not the case. I think most in politics accept vigorous challenge and debate as par for the course. I do not feel the nature of certain posts has been ?aggressive?; they have been tenacious and at times indicated intense frustration. Sorry Admin, just seen your response above. Feel free to remove my post if you consider it unhelpful.

I think Rockets is doing just fine and so will many others.

Metallic, I agree, from some of the pro-closure lobby there is a sense of smug moral superiority combined with a complete lack of empathy for any perspective that does not align with theirs. They have decided the the order of priorities and believe they have the absolute right to impose this on everyone else, so pretty much any sort of manipulation and distortions are justified. An approach like this will never work and simply fuels tensions. It is also undemocratic. Real and lasting change generally requires more time, thought and consultation. This is an inconvenient aspect of living in a democracy. This is not to say that the majority of us do not want to reduce pollution and car ownership but it is complex.

Not to mention an early advocate of mass CPZ

It is nothing short of scandalous that in a pandemic emergency services have not been properly involved in the consultation process.

I think that reference to being like a reformed alcoholic or born again christian is telling. There is a danger in being so zealous in your desire to reform or convert others you lose perspective. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mulumbu is a walker, cyclist, hitcher, public > transport user, motor cyclist and driver she/he > has a better perspective than most. She/he knows > lots about this issue and can reflect back over > the years on how her/his behaviour has changed due > to a mixture of wanting to improve the environment > and health, and some of the hard measures in > particularly parking charges. This makes her/him > a little like a reformed alcoholic or born again > Christian when it comes to this discussion. > She/he would love others to have a more informed > debate rather than just blather on about > Southwark, TfL and the Mayor. > > Here's a nice piece of work about making it easier > for commuters to Heathrow not to drive by the > nudge unit. This shows sadly that many people are > so wedded to their car dispelling the myth that > people would readily switch and emphasising the > need for hard interventions. Read it and discuss. > I'm sure you all can't be pretend experts on > stats and the like. > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen > t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5863 > 76/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workp > lace-interventions.pdf

Malumbu is a cycling trainer, so probably not even-handed on any of this.

Rather reminds one of tactics going on over the pond right now! Divide and rule, fake news, lies and disinformation.

But other relevant stakeholders like businesses or emergency services not consulted from the start? legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s because they have. The council?s policy is > to consult disability and cycling groups on > traffic management orders that affect them. > Choosing one at random (I just put CPZ into the > search engine and this came up), the description > of the consultation process for the Croxted CPZ > is: > > > ?12. Notice was also given to non-statutory > consultees including: Transport for London, > Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark > Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living > Streets and London Travel Watch.? > > Policy at > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/t > raffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/ > traffic-management-orders?chapter=2. Note that SC > also seem to be consulted on relevant experimental > orders where no advance public consultation is > required eg > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91051 > /APPENDIX%201%20PECKHAM%20RYE.pdf > > > > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I do find it slightly disconcerting that reps > of > > Southwark Cycling have such intimate knowledge > of > > the ins and outs of recently introduced CPZs in > > the area. It does give the impression that they > > have somehow been party to stuff that mere > > residents have not been.

I do find it slightly disconcerting that reps of Southwark Cycling have such intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of recently introduced CPZs in the area. It does give the impression that they have somehow been party to stuff that mere residents have not been.

RRR, no need to look at it if you don?t want to but seems lots of people do. Lots of very useful info all in one place too.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 60-70 cars at about 10am this morning. How does this address the points Spider69 has been making?

Again, it?s the weekend. You?ve missed the point.

Spider must be making it all up, in the same way that anyone questioning any of this stuff is persistently framed by some as a right wing loony, or simply a liar. Yesterday was Saturday. I suspect Spider is referring to weekday use. The time some dog walkers and others have historically used the park for a walk, parking up to do so. The reason they have used a car is because the park is too far to walk there and back. The journey is also too difficult by public transport. After introduction of these recent measures numbers of people with limited mobility will now be priced out of the simple pleasure of regular park use. It?s discriminatory and incredibly short sighted of the council. Please don?t talk about Blue Badges and the like. Anyone with any real knowledge and experience of these knows they are hard to get and many people with degrees of mobility issues are denied them.

Great idea. Go for it.

S?wark want to have their cake and eat it. They want to tick political boxes re car use, air quality and schools but they also want to maximise revenue opportunities, hence CPZ and other measures that can lead to penalty charges. If cars go I wonder which sector they?ll round on next? FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So they're closing a road at school times that > has > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do > > they need this - according to the pro-closure > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been > > fixed - reference the photos of children > milling > > around the school. Or is it that the closure of > > the road has created a school drop-off > cul-de-sac > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at > the > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the council > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" > that > > no-one will be able to get access to the > parking > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > coffin > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > > > Are the residents in support as that prevents > all > > access to their properties during those hours? > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty > unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head > of Charter admitted as much. > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > for School Streets on it's own but the fact there > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > usually get through - but not sure how that > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that > will help the EDG congestion situation and safety > of pupils.

Of course it was forseen. They want to increase parking pressure not relieve it.

Quite and this is why the zeal around imposition of current changes feels uncomfortable. It smacks of sacrifice your own health so I can achieve a pollution free and traffic free environment for me and my family now and longer term.

In addition to all day CPZ, extended double yellow and and plant barriers?

Is it half term? Perhaps more kids pretending to be grownups posting? It?s a rainy day after all.

legalalien I second your points but the DM reader charge has become a means to stereotype other posters. It is cheap and low.

Well done to you both.

It?s why we need some decent independents.

Ah, but divide and rule is such a useful tactic. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have to ensure this is an area-wide > consultation and that the councillors are engaging > with all RAs and all stakeholders. For too long > they have treated this issue on a ward-by-ward > basis and this is why the problems are so bad. Any > discussion has to be with ALL stakeholders across > the whole of Dulwich - not just in the pockets > where there are the most vocal pro-closure > activists. > > The gentleman at the beginning is he from the > Dulwich Village RA?