first mate

Ah but the council will love that since electric vehicles are heavier it means they can charge more. They already have plans to penalise owners of electric cars. In summary, on the one hand Cll McAsh and fans want to rid the streets of all cars, but they also want to encourage shoppers to visit the area in cars and ensure they are able to park, as a matter of 'fairness'. They also feel that because areas closer to the city and to tube lines have controlled parking, it is only 'fair' other areas, with weaker transport links, like ED, have it too. The overriding rationale for CPZ in ED has very little to do with parking pressure- the only legal reason to ever have it. The council also presumably think it only fair that the consultation process is open to anyone, meaning someone living much further afield can decide that your street should have CPZ, purely for ideological reasons, not because of any parking pressure. How is that fair?

This is laughable. The landscaped junction is not a 'community hub' the shops where people walk to buy stuff, the restaurants, the pub and nearby parks are what draw people in. I have little doubt though that LCC and Southwark Cyclists will do their very best to make this seem a 'destination'.

We are told the main reason for widening pavements is to make everything 'nicer' and 'safer' for pedestrians. If there is a way to keep cyclists off the pedestrianised 'safer' areas then all well and good. If not, and especially if those spaces are also ridden through by illegal e-bikes/motorbikes as well as other cyclists, then 'safer' becomes empty rhetoric. As for crossings and floating bus stops; I am sure you will have seen the video of cyclists dangerously speeding through one of these outside St Thomases.

Businesses on that side will be viewed by the council as 'unaffected' until a few individuals magically pop up with a 'complaint' about parking and then there will be another consultation on that side. Disingenuous is an understatement.

Undoubtedly that is the case. Nothing like a bit of confusing and contradictory signage to get the penalty cash register pinging. Additionally, it seems access times will apply to some types of motorbike but not to others (illegal e-bikes, which we are told are actually motorbikes in law) can come and go as they please, because people think they are e-bikes. This is a gift to food delivery outfits.

To be honest, I think it makes little difference. The consultation questionnaire seems deeply flawed and designed to allow anyone, anywhere, to vote to impose CPZ in areas they do not even live in. The council and its CPZ supporters, both outside of and in other parts of the borough, are determined ED should be CPZ. Note the latest 'messaging' is if those living closer to the city (with the benefit of tube lines) have to have CPZ then it is 'only fair' we should also have it. I hope everyone remembers that the only legal reason for CPZ is to alleviate parking pressure. In the current consultation area you may occasionally have to park a street away, but otherwise, parking is manageable.

I thought there was a desire to keep motorbikes off that road at certain times? Aren't you always pointing out that illegal e-bikes are actually classed in law as motorbikes? So if they are motorbikes they must be included, surely. Otherwise, it looks like you are arguing they count as motorbikes when it suits and they do not count as motorbikes when it doesn't.

It occurs to me that perhaps there might also need to be an icon included for illegal e-bikes on that sign, given they are very much on the rise. That may be difficult because although they are classified as motorbikes they look like a bicycle. Also what about powered scooters🤔 Anyway, we probably agree that any vehicle that can exceed 15 mph should not be allowed.

Thanks Northern, I also had to use a laptop in the end, so it seems the council questionnaire may not be compatible with a range of handheld devices, which may have put off those who would like to participate. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age.

We have established that to those in the know, distinguishing legal and illegal e-bikes may be possible but most don't know the difference. A simple solution is to apply 20mph to all and anything that looks like a bike and that might make enforcement a bit easier all round. Getting hit by one of those things will hurt. On the subject of driving and mobile phones, can I just point out the increase in younger cyclists who like to cycle with both hands off the handlebars holding and looking at their mobile phone. That has to be risky.

I think it is pretty much a given they will.

The issue I see is that if you put down the road you live in you have limited options. The only roads named are those within the proposed consultation area. However if you answer that you live in one of those roads there is no way to check if you do or do not. There is also the category of 'other'. By ticking that box it means you may live in a road adjacent to, or very close to, the consultation area and may therefore be directly affected with displaced parking if the CPZ is imposed. But, 'other' could also apply to anyone living in any other road in the borough; so how does this then relate back to the question "do you want permit parking on your road"? Are all the 'other' answers given equal weighting? What about the bit that asks if you are a visitor or a resident to the area. How does that relate to the "other" and "on your road" questions? Someone in an adjacent road or very close by might legitimately say they are resident..but what about the those living further afield?

Not at all, if people feel strongly that a street they do not live in should have CPZ then obviously they are free to post their views on here. This is more about me trying to understand how the results are collated and interpreted. For instance, one poster on here said he was advised that the council would not make those streets that do not want CPZ have CPZ (aligning with Cllr McAsh' 'promise' this would not happen). However, from the design of the consultation questionnaire, how can they be sure what each street wants?

Mal may have somehow sent in a submission to test the link, perhaps he will say. I am however puzzled as to how you can respond in an honest way to the consultation if you do not live in or adjacent to the consultation area? One of the very few mandatory questions asks if you are a resident and if you want permit controls "on your road". There is not an option to say I live further away but I support CPZ in destinations I visit.

I am sorry, but it is more than three people and they actually live in the consultation area which suggests there is a bit of an issue no? If those meant to be consulted cannot actually respond then what is it all meant to be for? Just helping me to understand how this works? Many of the questions are optional but there are a couple that are not; one asks if you "want permit controls on your road"? If you live a bit away from the consultation area, neither on one of the roads in or adjacent to the area, how do you answer that? Doesn't the question suggest you live on one of the roads in the consultation area? I can see that people close and adjacent to the consultation area might be affected and so could answer if CPZ installed then they also want controls as they will take displaced parking. But, if for instance, you live a bus journey away and answer 'yes, I want permit controls on my road" doesn't this suggest you live in or adjacent to the consultation area?

That is simply amazing that you managed first time. I have been trying again today, on various devices and with no luck. Just from this forum alone, that is three of us that have had issues. i wonder why....? Speaking to neighbours; they are also having issues and cannot get beyond the green circle going round and round. One aspect of the questionnaire that puzzles me is how someone like Malumbu, who has managed to fill it in online and submit, answers the question about "Do you want permit controls on your road"- online most of the questions are optional, but that one is not. If you do not actually live in the consultation area how do you answer that question?

I guess their contention would be that someone saying they cannot complete online is lying. That is the problem with these consultations and the way they are operated. I really do think responses should be limited to the streets directly involved as well as those immediately adjacent/ contiguous, otherwise the whole thing is open to abuse. Pro CPZ groups are highly coordinated and motivated. Of course, you may be in favour, so apologies if I seem to be making assumptions. Hand on heart, I feel this is a done deal and the example of Dulwich Village CPZ shows that they will push it through, whatever the result. Cllr McAsh has said he would like to rid the streets of all cars so I think we know what is coming. One thing I understand is that the leaflet gives options of times for parking controls and you have to fill one of the options out or your response is voided. The online consultation did not seem to have these? Is it legal to have two 'varieties' of consultation format operating at the same time, if indeed that is the case?

Thanks rch and Penguin, well, well, well how very interesting. I have been trying and still had no success. I would not be surprised if others have tried then given up. How convenient. It is interesting how often these consultations seem to suffer 'technical' glitches. If anyone has succeeded then please let us know the magic solution. Better still perhaps the man in charge can sort it out.

I may have misinterpreted but I felt doubt was being cast on P68 saying that they had experienced an extreme unforeseen weather event. I was simply saying I had also had this experience and not just with snow but also rain. Both times I was really nervous driving and nearly had to pull over, especially the snowstorm at night. So I was posting about that. Glad we can agree weather unpredictability may be on the rise.

Just wondering if anyone has had success filling out the consultation online? There is only a week left to do it.

If I know there is extreme weather coming up, personally I would try to avoid going out in it, although I know some people get a buzz taking risks. I think what is different about the weather events experienced by myself and P68 is the surprise element. I guess with climate change we can expect more unpredictability.

I didn't say that; I was just commenting that like P68, I had also got caught out in a totally unexpected snowstorm, in this country. I think the snowstorm was around 2018; I wonder if that was the same year for you Penguin? The torrential rain was much more recent but really unlike anything I have experienced in this country before.

Malumbu said: " just in case a freak snow storm happens. I've never experienced one of these in the UK" Surprised you haven't experienced this ever in the UK? I have. I remember being caught out by unforecasted snow, falling so fast and thick there was near zero visibility. The weather conditions changed incredibly fast and lots of drivers caught out. It was also early evening, so dark. Many cars had to pull over; a number of them sliding around on the road too. It was incredibly scary. More recently I have also been caught out by absolutely torrential rain (more akin to monsoon conditions) similarly unforcasted and also very difficult to drive in.

I think I remember that year. Was that the time buses were all parked up in lines because they could not get up or down the hills either end of ED?

You also have to factor in which is more polluting.