Rockets

To be fair @snowy Sadiq did this time round because between the Tory government and Labour government he suddenly decided he needed to ask for 50% less money....https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o

You dont have to be a Lobbyist to be a lobbyist! Would you not agree that many of your posts are lobbying for the benefits of active travel/LTNs and that you take strong positions against anyone who does not subscribe to your particular view on the matter?

I would definitely categorise you as an active travel lobbyist (in the same way I have no doubt you categorise me as anti-LTN) given your propensity for defending and promoting anything and everything the council says on the matter and the way you aggressively, and relentlessly, argue with anyone who dares suggest a different perspective. To be fair you do also claim to subscribe to a paid-for service to receive Anna Goodman reports on LTNs which does suggest more than a casual interest in the matter! 😉

Oh another click bait headline? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-cycling-tsar-will-norman-idiots-motorists-red-light-jumping-b1238425.html

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists...I dont need my big boy pants to post that...goodness me! I think that is pretty obvious - lets also ground this conversation on the nonsense accounts set-up like LTNBooHoo, RaptorTruckMan etc which were just set-up (I suspect probsbly by posters with other aliases) to troll anyone who dares disagree with the active travel propaganda posted by some. ....as I was saying...

@Earl Aelfheah perhaps everyone should get badges....;-) I am happy to proclaim that I am not an active travel lobbyist!

But it did not show majority support for the DV LTN did it? That's how you were trying to use it and you got caught and it is you who are trying to weedle your way out of it - unsuccessfully I hasten to add. Do you acknowledge then that there was majority opposition to the DV LTN in the consultation report? @DulvilleRes you clearly think I have something to do with One Dulwich. For the umpteenth time I don't. If you think I do, by all means, say so but this innuendo is becoming very boring. I suggest you have nothing more to go on than a hunch but your hunch is wrong. I believe One Dulwich is doing a great job stopping folks from sweeping a load of stuff under the carpet....five years on and all that! Bravo to them and if it annoys a few of the usual suspects that this is happening then even more bravo to OneDulwich! It does and it is up to other road users to respect this and the whole point of this thread is in relation to the increasing number of cyclists who seem not to know or respect that fact.

What, a bit like your majority support for DV LTNs false assertion where you clearly hadn't read the whole report...;-)

Yes indeed, will he still sit in cabinet under her? Or does she get to do a reshuffle?

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah there are lots of people who post solely positive articles on cycling...yet you don't seem critical of them doing so....why might that be? I mean, have you ever posted something critical of cycling or anything other than something in glowing support of LTNs? Be thankful some like me are on here posting articles for the sale of balance! Forums tend to be better when they aren't just vehicles of propaganda! 😉 But i do also think it is interesting that you automatically jump to assessing articles as negative and use it as some sort of crux to attack me with. The article was highlighting measures being considered in what is widely accepted as the leading cycling country and I dont think was particularly negative in tone. The issue, and the flagging as it being "negative", is seemingly based on the sensitivity amongst many in the pro-active travel community in having to address anything that might suggest there are issues that might need addressing. It is this knee-jerk reaction that leads many to believe that there are some who just dont want to have to deal or discuss any of the issues people are raising - that the head-in-the-sand approach is best.

And you're still refusing to help me answer the questions....that's not very helpful is it? Oh well...

Nope. I just read a lot, it helps expand the mind! 😉

Is he still the one signing these off given the leadership issues?

@Earl Aelfheah other opinions may differ from yours....and, do you know what, you may not be right all of the time....;-) I still think given Anna Goodman's challenges with objectivity when faced with an anti-LTN poster in a local shop you can call her objectivity into doubt when co-authoring papers on LTNs...surely we can agree on that much at least....;-) Can you PM me a copy perhaps....;-) Of course you're not. And I didn't say it is wrong I asked a question about the methodology...but we all know you know that...why do I think you know there has been some jiggery pockery at play....if not surely you could just help answer the question? Are you avoiding providing the answer perhaps?

But does the report answer the questions I initially posed - Just start doing the math, look at the areas where LTNs have been deployed (I did also notice that the first Peter Walker/ Goodman research article in 2021 did analysis of 72 LTNs - installed during Covid - and the most recent looked at 113 LTNs so are we presuming that since 2021 another 40+ LTNs were put in or have the researchers expanded to LTNs installed before Covid and, as such what do they define as an LTN?).

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963

@Earl Aelfheah as usual, there is an alternative version of events - I posed questions about the methodology linked to the report and resulting exlcusive media coverage provided in the Guardian - you took umbrage to me asking questions without having read a full copy of the report (due to it being behind a paywall) - you claimed to have a copy of said report - I asked you to see if you could answer the questions on the basis of you having a copy of said report - you refused, I am sure this led some to suspect you may not have a copy of the report as you claimed. The irony of your above claim of course is that this thread is about a report analysing the LTNs over a period beyond 5 years - perhaps you think that the OP should not have shared it in that case - you cant have it both ways, choosing when to selectively discuss things and then claiming too much time has elapsed when someone else does. It looks to many that there are some here who refuse to discuss anything that doesn't sit within their particular ideological purview or when they see something that doesn't put LTNs into anything other than a shining light! Suddenly then it is...move along folks, nothing to see here. It's ever so slightly hypocritical.

Sorry @Earl Aelfheah is that aimed at me, someone else or are you talking to yourself? 😉

Unfortunately, the world is shifting more to the right and so even now centre-left politics of the Blair era would likely struggle in this climate. It's terrible but world politics are starting to mould our country politics. A shift further left won't work.

It's going to be an interesting few months leading up to May... ..massive discontent with the Labour government ...potential civil-war in Southwark Labour ...local councillors who have been upsetting many residents with their policies and, in some cases, attitude ...left-wing voters shifting to the Greens or others But of course...the Lib Dems have been pro-LTN and Tories are, well, Tories. At the end of the day how long have Labour run the local wards..too long probsbly...I do wonder if there is appetite for some change but is there a viable alternative. Clearly Southwark will always be led by Labour but us residents need more opposition to hold council leadership accountable. The position Labour have held at Southwark HQ is not good for the residents.

No, because the issues of that election were bigger than local issues...Labour made sure of it. I doubt they can pull that card in May.... If the Tories and LibDems had any sense one of them would withdraw and try to galvanise the vote against Labour.

This new party might do nothing more than serve Reform victory in the next election - there is no mood for a far-left party (as 2019 aptly demonstrated) and taking votes from Labour could be a nightmare for the whole country. But Corbyn has only cared about himself and his ideology - once a backbencher, always a backbencher.

Spot on, Southwark Council went out of their way to avoid mentioning anything to do with LTNs and made it everything about a vote for Labour sent a message to Boris and the Tories.

No, because of what has been happening in our local area. I dont think they are doing it because of any perceived weakness but more that busy mums with a full car of kids rushing to get to school and on with their day present an opportunity for what is, essentially, a distraction scam. PCSOs have been advising people to intervene to help anyone targeted by them as they suddenly make a miraculous recovery when challenged by people other than the driver they have targeted.

But it was not signalling majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN was it? And that was the context in which you were using it. In fact, the consultation materially showed that there was majority opposition to the LTN. So you were wrong. I am afraid you are the one who is deflecting. We can all see what you are doing and the more you try to argue about it the clearer your tactics become. Look at the discussion on this thread. I pose questions based on media reports and the abstract of Goodman's report. You spin that to say how can I be critical if I haven't read the report. You claim to have a copy of the report and I ask you whether my questions are answered by the report. You refuse to try to answer my original questions. You then attack me again for not having read the report. Do you see the pattern here?