Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If people are using bikes instead of a car or the bus then it’s a win.

Why is it a win if they arent using a bus or tube. The environmental impact of their journey on a bus or tube is very likely to be less that that on a Lime bike...or is it that you think as long a a bike instead of a vehicle is being used then it is a "win"?

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’re trying to pretend that no one walks anymore, but are choosing to pay three quid every time they leave the house based on nothing.

No I am not. What I am trying to point out to you is that for every person who jumps on Lime bike instead of walking or getting public transport that is an environmental negative. 

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I suspect a large number of lime journeys are actually new journeys / the result of induced demand as well as switches.

New journeys, what these people were house bound before seeing a Lime bike?

36 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I think everyone can see how disingenuous this is.

No its not it's pragmatic commonsense that a lot of people agree with.

38 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you’re suggesting that 35% of car journeys (‘any mode’) are actually under 1 km? Is that better?

"By any mode" isn't just cars...it's all journeys.......

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Why is it a win if they arent using a bus or tube.

It has less environmental impact (Which you’re pretending to be really concerned about remember), and active travel is better for health.

25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

New journeys, what these people were house bound before seeing a Lime bike?

Nope. This is a concept you regularly appear to struggle with. There are not just a fixed number of journeys that people make without choice. I have literally given you an example of one scenario, but there are many. Different available transport options open up different opportunities, or reduce ‘friction’ leading to different decisions. A well documented example of this is induced demand following the creation of. Anew road for example.

25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No its not it's pragmatic commonsense that a lot of people agree with.

So again. Explain why you’re concerned about the pollution caused by short journeys taken by e-bike, but not by car? Doesn’t seem like common sense. Seems massively disingenuous.

25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

"By any mode" isn't just cars...it's all journeys......

Presumably including car.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Haha 1
15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Tell that to people who wanted to make points about council tax levied on motorists ‘without discounts’ and those wanting to express concern about the environmental impact of electric bikes whilst consistently minimising the impact of car journeys / objecting to any suggestion that is a problem. If one is going to make such points, it is not reasonable to expect them to be accepted without comment or challenge.

I thought you were very much into debating in good faith? Not from what you are doing here, which looks to be shaping up as more point scoring down the rabbit hole.

Could you perhaps start a new thread and leave this one to those actually interested in the proposed CPZ on Melbourne Grove? Please?

To posters who asked earlier but have probably given up on finding anything relevant to MGS CPZ on this thread, I just want to say that I tried to find the consultation report again and have been unable to, which is really odd, I know. 

 

Posted (edited)

I’ve directly addressed the points they’ve made. 

Ask them not to make points about e-bikes or the council tax paid by motorists ‘without discount’, if you think they’re taking things off topic.

Don’t ask that people not be challenged on things they’ve said.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

Yes @first mate lets get this back on track.

@Earl Aelfheah you're misguided on this I am afraid and completely wrong and I do wonder whether you just take these positions to be argumentative and distract  from the thread in question but do start a new thread if you want to continue the debate...but bottom line is Lime bikes are not the active travel panacea you project they are and there is growing evidence that their use is not helping the very thing they were sold to us on because the usage is mainly switching existing journeys from walking and public transport.

Here's my prediction on the Melbourne Grove - it goes to consultation and the majority respond no but a few will say yes (probably close friends of the council and the active travel lobby groups) and the council will decide to roll it out on one road which then creates a knock-on effect on other roads and they then go knocking on their doors talking about parking pressure.

 

 

 

The thing I am not clear about and perhaps others can explain, is the report I saw but which now seems to have disappeared (?) said that the majority were against CPZ, but laid out plans for a smaller CPZ anyway but then said it must go to statutory consultation. Does this mean because the area has been revised they have to consult all over again or is this something different. 

It seems they are set on October anyway, despite statutory consultation being required ( over the summer holidays, conveniently).

Out of interest how does affect you all?  I'm a casual observer and simply post a few views and question some of the things that are said.  When the discussion broadens, onto other things you don't like/don't agree on, then someone questions this, you then shut it down.  

Lime bikes are popular.  Parking them can be annoying at times, but many use them. They are not going away, and they will have some reduction in car use.

Charging for parking will have an affect on car journeys and ownership.

I expect your main issue continues to be your dislike of everything Southwark, stemming from the LTN. 

Just trying to get my head around the volume of posts.

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)

I did not see that report but a lot of Southwark reports are either being removed or are being moved - it's making things very difficult to find things unless you happen to have saved copies. There are a lot of 404 messages where there used to be reports.

@malumbu please start a new thread. This tactic is starting to wear a little thin now....even though I do tend to bite on the bait....Melbourne Grove (not Road...ahem) CPZ or bust please....

Edited by Rockets
Posted (edited)

Malumbu is trying ever so hard to bait, but he will have to find another pond.

As for the disappeared consultation report, I do find that really strange as it is fresh off the press news; it should be really easy to find.

Perhaps the first person to find that report wins a prize- a night out will Mal and Earl...A date with Mearl?

Edited by first mate
  • Confused 1
14 minutes ago, first mate said:

As for the disappeared consultation report, I do find that really strange as it is fresh off the press news; it should be really easy to find.

Someone must have a copy saved somewhere. Strange that things are so hard to find on Southwark's website - I thought documents like that should be easy to find.

17 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps the first person to find that report wins a prize- a night out will Mal and Earl...A date with Mearl?

I thought you wanted to find it again....;-)

14 hours ago, first mate said:

But you pursued it. Again, why can't you just start another thread, you have done it before.

You want your friend to be able to make comments and not be challenged? Ask Rockets not to take things off topic if it bothers you. Don’t ask that he be immune from challenge when making disingenuous and / or misleading comments.

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

but bottom line is Lime bikes are not the active travel panacea you project they are and there is growing evidence that their use is not helping the very thing they were sold to us on

I’ve never said they’re a panacea. You’ve offered no evidence that they’re increasing pollution. None. It’s amazing that you expect people to take your ‘concern’ that Lime bikes are damaging the environment seriously whilst having nothing to say about short journeys being undertaken by car (on any measure a far more polluting option). The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

please start a new thread. This tactic is starting to wear a little thin now

The irony. So you’re are Ok to talk about Lime bikes, in ways that are both misleading and disingenuous, but anyone who responds or corrects you is taking the thread off topic. Do you actually hear yourself? 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

The subject matter was moved on to that of the thread's title and yet here you are again, taking it back to something else. So much for your debating in 'good faith'. The 'he made me do it' defence is hilarious.
 

Some of you are extremely good with access to Southwark documents, sometimes documents that the rest of us are unable to locate. Do any of you have access to the (recently available but swiftly disappearing) Melbourne Grove South Consultation report?

Edited by first mate

@Earl Aelfheah feel free to start a new thread and I will happily take the discussion up with you there and to catalyse you to do it - I repeat - you are wrong with your assertions - very, very wrong but we have seen this time and time again, an inability for anyone on the pro-active travel side of the argument to be even be slightly pragmatic. You suggest I am suffering from cognitive dissonance which is surprising because I thought admin had banned people from making such accusations.

@march46 usually has a hotline to council documents so maybe they can help, it is odd they have disappeared as some of the othe pages are still up: is this where they posted the results or was it somewhere else: https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/melbourne-grove-south-parking-survey

Is this a council oversight or do they not want people to see the results of the survey?

 

  • Haha 1

It's happened before I think, either with a CPZ or an LTN. A decision was made and accidentally published early then removed. If I recall correctly they then denied any decision had been made before then publishing the (long predicted and accidentally released) decision at a later date.

 

On 09/06/2025 at 21:47, first mate said:

Again, why can't you just start another thread, you have done it before.

Alternatively offer some thoughts on the Melbourne Grove South CPZ? 

hmmm...

On 10/06/2025 at 14:05, Rockets said:

I repeat - you are wrong with your assertions - very, very wrong but we have seen this time and time again, an inability for anyone on the pro-active travel side of the argument to be even be slightly pragmatic.

Maybe have a word with the person who took the thread off track, and keeps taking it off track. Again, happy to keep to topic, but not to give people a free pass to say anything they like when they fail to do so.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
On 10/06/2025 at 15:00, first mate said:

It may well be my poor search skills. I cannot say categorically that is has disappeared, only that a few days ago I found it but now cannot- you'd think it would be relatively easy to find. I am kicking myself for not saving it.

FM, the rate at which the council moves the online homes for many items I have now got into the habit of saving anything and everything as this is happening a lot.

@Rockets surely every reasonable person supports more exercise for the masses.  Getting out and walking and/or cycling has to have benefits, even if you have already joined a gym, play regular sport etc.

I don't know why you continue this us Vs them narrative.  

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...