Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[Rockets]

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.......

[Earl Aelfheah]

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 June 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

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 June 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

What is to stop you taking it to another thread?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Because they posted it on this thread. Why not address this to Rockets?

I did not bring it up.

[first mate]

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

Alternatively offer some thoughts on the Melbourne Grove South CPZ? 

[Rockets]

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.

 

 

 

[first mate]

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).

[malumbu]

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.

[Rockets]

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 June 9 by Rockets

[malumbu]

'You' being FM and Rockets, and a few others

[first mate]

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 June 9 by first mate

[Rockets]

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....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

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 June 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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 June 10 by first mate

[Rockets]

@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?

 

[march46]

Do we have any evidence that they’ve ‘disappeared’, or just that @firstmate can’t find them but once could? Before you start off on another conspiracy theory it’s worth clarifying. 

[Penguin68]

I assume firstmate has the evidence of his own eyes. What was there, now isn't. Unless you can find this elusive document... and share it, please. 

[CPR Dave]

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.

[first mate]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

Edited June 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

 

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 June 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

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.

[malumbu]

@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.