Forum Sponsors

www.circlepsychologypartners.co.uk

http://www.ellyallen.com/

www.nannycentral.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Coffee tastes best at... Blue Mountain? Caffe Nero? The East Dulwich Cafe?
Goto Page: Previous1234567
Current Page: 7 of 7
messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rendelharris 24 October, 2017 19:55

Ah, good to see you back Richard and as ready for reasonable debate as ever - how's Dullywood?

Care to explain why the figures gathered in that week would be significantly different to any other week?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by richard tudor 24 October, 2017 20:14

Very simple. Traffic patterns change.

Not difficult to understand. Life changes on a daily basis. Each day is has its own pattern.

I am surprised you could not see that.

Please let me and forum know the result of your house to house survey.

Who is Dullywood?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2017:10:24:20:15:17 by richard tudor.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rendelharris 24 October, 2017 20:18

I'm sure had the survey figures supported your case you would not be questioning it. But hey, I have no right to comment as I have not, to my shame, actually conducted a door-to-door survey.

With regards to your final question, why ask questions to which you know the answer?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by richard tudor 24 October, 2017 20:41

As I recall, but cannot like you spend time going through old posts, I am sure I have previously said I have no idea who Dullywood is.

Up up and away with the clipboard and door knocking.

Have other things to do now, goodnight.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by LynnB 24 October, 2017 21:36

Any data based upon a small sample size increases the chance the data are not accurate.
Traffic data for one week is an example. A larger sample would very likely give a more accurate value.
The data could be skewed to show a lot more traffic or a lot less traffic than the average based upon a larger sample size.

Several reasons spring to mind as to why traffic data could be unusually low in a certain week.
It is currently half-term & I live near a school. Typically there are lots of cars dropping off & picking up kids. This week there are none. Another example is reduced traffic in August when everyone is on holiday somewhere else. When surrounding roads are diverted traffic on alternate roads goes up artificially until that is resolved.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rendelharris 24 October, 2017 21:45

LynnB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any data based upon a small sample size increases
> the chance the data are not accurate.
> Traffic data for one week is an example. A larger
> sample would very likely give a more accurate
> value.

Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live here") - but the ratios would remain fairly consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists' assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates or invalidates the case for bridge closure or reopening I really don't know, but the debate isn't helped by people (again, not you) just dismissing figures without offering any alternative evidence.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rupert james 24 October, 2017 22:14

rendelharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LynnB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Any data based upon a small sample size
> increases
> > the chance the data are not accurate.
> > Traffic data for one week is an example. A
> larger
> > sample would very likely give a more accurate
> > value.
>
> Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just
> saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live
> here") - but the ratios would remain fairly
> consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists'
> assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that
> traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on
> Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates
> or invalidates the case for bridge closure or
> reopening I really don't know, but the debate
> isn't helped by people (again, not you) just
> dismissing figures without offering any
> alternative evidence.

"Unlike you I happen to live on the road. I see what is happening every day.

Perhaps you might like to get off your bike and knock on every residence and ask what the problem is. You might be surprised.

Not only do we have vast amounts of traffic we also have no parking due to the recent implementing of the "toastrack" CPZ.

I am sure there are figures that can be produced but they cover 1 week out of 52 or 1 week out of 26.

Meaningless

The real situation does not revolve around figures for week"

Is this not what I said?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rendelharris 24 October, 2017 22:29

You did. And in your earlier post you said "What a load of rubbish" in reply to Southwark Cyclists' assertion that traffic remains 2.5x higher outside DKH primary than on Chadwick Road, on the basis that you live on the road. Where are your figures? If you have contradictory evidence I'd be delighted to see it and would be happy to change my mind accordingly. As I said above, I don't know if it alters the case for opening the bridge or retaining the closure, but just saying "what a load of rubbish" in response to actual facts doesn't advance the debate very far, does it? What was so different about the week of the study to any other week - not in terms of numbers, but ratios?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rupert james 24 October, 2017 22:43

What a load of rubbish referred to Chadwick week being the quietest road not ratios or % beloved by Councils

Please go knock on doors and ask residents views on traffic on a day to day basis you then might change your mind.

It wont involve your beloved stats.

As I have said 1 weeks figures are meaningless.

To save you further posts, as usual you can accept victory and move on to other posts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2017:10:24:22:44:11 by rupert james.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by taper 25 October, 2017 07:31

Chadwick Road is a back street. Comparing it with the road outside DKH school is bogus and irrelevant. The data shows that closing the bridge has thrown a lot of extra traffic down Lyndhurst Grove and other streets, including Chadwick where traffic levels have spiked.

We know the impact on people using and living on those streets has been negative. I used to live on Lyndhurst Grove. And when the bridge was last closed is was truly awful. Camberwell Grove with the traffic reduced to one lane is a good compromise given CGís width and houses set back from the road.

Iím still stunned that Southwark Ctyclists support it remaining closed. They seem to have been utterly played by the residents. Or perhaps a few leading lights in the organisation use that route a lot. Either way, they have done their reputation a lot of damage in my eyes.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by peckham_ryu 26 October, 2017 11:55

taper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Iím still stunned that Southwark Ctyclists support
> it remaining closed. They seem to have been
> utterly played by the residents. Or perhaps a few
> leading lights in the organisation use that route
> a lot. Either way, they have done their reputation
> a lot of damage in my eyes.

A lot of cyclists are singlemindedly obsessed with journey speed. The current arrangement means no waiting at traffic lights, so it may shave a crucial minute off the journey time, often with no annoying stop/start moment on the uphill journey.

On the Chadwick Road issue, motorists using the road as a rat run are often speeding far too fast. This is nothing new, itís just that there are more of them now. Itís both dangerous and noisy: Iím tempted to lobby for a bobby with a speed gun, if they still do that.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by taper 26 October, 2017 12:26

Thing is, as I noted earlier, I used to cycle up CG during morning rush hour, with a child trailer behind me (with child in it!), and then back down during the evening rush hour. The one lane arrangement regulated the flow of traffic and made it perfectly safe. But you're right, coming down the hill, you often had to stop (the horror).

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by LynnB 26 October, 2017 22:05

rendelharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LynnB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Any data based upon a small sample size
> increases
> > the chance the data are not accurate.
> > Traffic data for one week is an example. A
> larger
> > sample would very likely give a more accurate
> > value.
>
> Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just
> saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live
> here") - but the ratios would remain fairly
> consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists'
> assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that
> traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on
> Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates
> or invalidates the case for bridge closure or
> reopening I really don't know, but the debate
> isn't helped by people (again, not you) just
> dismissing figures without offering any
> alternative evidence.

Not sure if I understand the source of the data that generate the ratio of which you are speaking.
A ratio does not mitigate the problems with a small sample size poorly representing the true value, unless the ratio is made up of numbers from a larger sample size, the ratio will have the potential to mislead as well as any single non-fraction value.
For full disclosure I am pro-cycles & public transport and I don't own a car.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Bopster 29 October, 2017 13:41

So much for the consultation.

Permanent diversion signs have been installed on Lyndhurst Grove and Lyndhurst Way.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by ollieloudon 31 October, 2017 12:09

Yeah permanent bridge closed sign up also

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Siduhe 31 October, 2017 14:25

The consultation closed two days ago - is this when the signs first went up? If so, that implies an astonishing disregard for the consultation process.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by taper 31 October, 2017 15:20

Truly astonishing decision, if this is indeed the decision.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rahrahrah 31 October, 2017 15:25

If that is the outcome, I am far from surprised. The consultation was (sadly) always an irrelevance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2017:10:31:15:26:55 by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by LynnB 31 October, 2017 15:37

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that is the outcome, I am far from surprised.
> The consultation was (sadly) always an
> irrelevance.

I have also found this to be my experience in one previous local consultation.
I think people need to remember this when they vote for local councillors, and make your displeasure known now so that they are aware of it.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Bopster 31 October, 2017 16:24

This has spurred me on to kick up a stink

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Bopster 31 October, 2017 16:28

Siduhe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The consultation closed two days ago - is this
> when the signs first went up? If so, that implies
> an astonishing disregard for the consultation
> process.

I think the signs must have gone up on friday. Although possibly sat.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by rendelharris 31 October, 2017 16:45

Then despite my having a different POV to most here, that stinks. Are they really permanent?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Siduhe 31 October, 2017 17:20

LynnB Wrote:

> I have also found this to be my experience in one
> previous local consultation.
> I think people need to remember this when they
> vote for local councillors, and make your
> displeasure known now so that they are aware of
> it.

I just asked James Barber if he could raise this with Southwark.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Charles Notice 31 October, 2017 17:59

"Subject: FW: Camberwell Grove bridge

Dear Mr Notice

Thank you for your email for which Councillor Wingfield has asked me to respond with respect to the new signs that have been recently erected.

The signs were erected on Thursday and Friday last week and were to replace the signs that were located on various A frames and other street furniture on the diversion route associated with the current closure of Camberwell Grove at the railway bridge. This was for three reasons:

1. To reduce the costs incurred by the council for the ongoing hire and daily maintenance checks
2. Now that the weather is becoming more wintery, I had some concern that the A frame based signs, even where weighted with sandbags, could become dislodged or be blown into the carriageway presenting a hazard for drivers and pedestrians
3. I have received reports that the signs were being removed or relocated by persons unknown

Residents should on no account be concerned that the more permanent nature of the signs is for any other reason than that stated above, and most certainly not in any anticipation of the result of the current and ongoing consultation. I would reiterate that the new signs are in place purely on safety and economic grounds.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information on the above.

Regards

Dale Foden"

Who do you believe?

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Nigello 31 October, 2017 19:40

I believe the person who has put his name to an official document, probably knowing the background to the controversy. Called me old fashioned, but I do.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Siduhe 31 October, 2017 19:50

The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to me at all (why would you install new signs just at the point you finalise a consultation which could, in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?), but I also tend to believe it's a true and real explanation - and it's good news for those of us who like to believe that consultations do have an impact.

The timing just sucks and I can't believe they didn't think about how it would look though.

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by peckham_ryu 31 October, 2017 22:34

Siduhe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to
> me at all (why would you install new signs just at
> the point you finalise a consultation which could,
> in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?),

At first sight seems odd, but then again itís sensible in the long run. They need to replace the signs, and donít yet know whether thatís temporary or forever. Using the Ďforeverí wording means no need to change again (at more cost) later, and if the decision is not curved then you were always going to have to remove the signs anyway so no harm done. Good commercial foresight.

Now, letís get that bridge open smiling smiley

messageRe: Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation
Posted by Penguin68 31 October, 2017 23:27

Even if the decision goes in favour of reopening it is most unlikely the bridge will be sufficiently repaired to open the road to limited traffic in under 6 months - so I suspect the new signage will 'cost-in' even if it is later removed - it will have to be replaced anyway with some signage about weight restrictions etc.

But for those wishing to scrutinise the decision making process here - keep on scrutinising. The simple move now would be to support the status quo (bridge closed) and do nothing. In which case, let's not keep it simple, stupid.

Goto Page: Previous1234567
Current Page: 7 of 7

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum