
Rockets
Member-
Posts
4,778 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
FAQ
Tradespeople Directory
Jobs Board
Store
Everything posted by Rockets
-
It's all a bit incestuous isn't it...the person who set up CAD advising Southwark Cyclists on how to lobby. No doubt then lobbying the council and then receiving funding from the council for said lobbying.....it's a virtuous cycle of self justification...no wonder CAD is trying to distance themselves from the perception they have received funding from the council. I love the bit where CAD states get to know your councillors...invite your councillors for coffee.... It appears they are no more than a funded council propaganda tool to try and convince residents that LTNs are a good thing/working.
-
march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61% - the > schemes aren?t perfect but those are positive > results. But that 12% has nothing to do with the LTNs does it? Because traffic across the whole borough was down by at least 7% according to the council's own estimations due to the pandemic yet they didn't factor that into their LTN traffic monitoring results at all - bar the very briefest of mentions in one of the opening paragraphs. Why, because they are trying to polish a turd and convince people the LTNs have had a positive effect when the exact opposite is true? And the 61% increase in cycling....based, in part, on, ahem, "independent" cycle counts by a pro-cycle lobbyist done at the height of the lockdown that were then used by the council in their analysis.....and to be honest a 61% increase is not enough to justify the disruption the measures have caused....if you're not doubling or quadrupling the numbers then you can't consider it success. Remember the cycle czar claiming cycling increasing 10x during lockdown....our measures couldn't even reach 1x...just 0.6x.....thats failure.
-
legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was > awarded in 2020/21 round. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/S > outh-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf I knew their Twitter bio claim was somewhat misleading.... interesting that they feel the need to make that claim (even though it is not entirely truthful!) - it makes you wonder how close they are to the council and whether they are a shill for the LTNs.
-
Goldilocks - they have certainly applied for funding from Southwark in the past - it was referenced in the link Legal posted. I am pretty sure they got that funding from that 2020 application - does someone know whether they did or not? If so, their claim of not being funded by Southwark council may need to change to not "currently" being funded by Southwark council. Also, to be fair, being funded by the council is a very specific use of wording as being funded implies something very different to receiving funding from the council....;-) I wonder if they have added that disclaimer to their twitter bio because people are questioning whether they are just a shill for the council?
-
I think the council would suggest this is budget to further the interests of locals and local interest groups but there is certainly a fine line they are walking when it comes to pro-LTN lobby groups and their funding. Didn't the money for the Party in the Square come from this fund and they have certainly funded activities for Clean Air For Dulwich who are one of the main pro-LTN lobby groups in the area - that's when it starts to get a bit messy, when council money is being used for groups to run events and activities that support divisive council initiatives like LTNs? Especially if you refuse to fund initiatives put forward by the other side of the argument which appears to have happened in this case - (even if you are eliminating their proposal on the basis of a technicality).
-
heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone disagree..?promote the awareness of > the need to adapt zero or low pollution means of > transport (electric / hybrid vehicles and cycles) > and to use public transport more? how does this > then become fraud and an anti-LTN group - that is > a leap by the Village Cllrs? You forgot to add anti-democracy - which is an accusation Cllr Leeming threw at them too!
-
This is exactly my point - Cllr Leeming seems keen to point out the technical flaws in the submission whilst diverting attention from/ignoring whether the submission had any merits. I am sure it isn't the first submission made by members of the public that fell short of what was required in terms of a technicality but I wonder if it is the first such submission where people weren't asked to correct those technicalities? Is the unmentioned technicality that it wasn't submitted by a group that the council has a cozy relationship with and uses as part of the lobbying process for its policies? Remember when people have challenged the council before on why certain groups/ideas get funding they have always responded that those were the only groups to submit for funding as part of the process. What is the council's track record when it comes to rejecting funding outright as they have seem to have done this time?
-
According to the screenshot Cllr Leeming posted the EDF post was made on Oct 4th on the dearly departed Our Healthy Streets thread. I would be interested to know why the councillors believe this is fraud - that is a strong accusation and suggests someone was going to mis-appropriate the funds or are they suggesting fraud because it used the same name as another twitter campaign group? Or is this the usual sensationalist echo-chamber twitter nonsense we have seen time and time again from our councillors? Clean Air for Dulwich also posted something about it but not sure they can claim a new anti-LTN group if this is linked to the post in Oct Bottom-line is the council and councillors have created a monster of a mess with the LTNs and they are under massive pressure with the elections fast approaching.
-
It's when Leeming refers to anti-democracy groups tweeting about the application having received funding that is starts getting ridiculous. Perhaps P3girl can provide some background? I wonder if no-one from the council did any due diligence on the applications before the meeting and because it was listed as Clean Air for Dulwich they presumed it was from their friends in the pro-LTN lobby group and that the funding would get a straight-forward greenlight. Perhaps during the meeting someone actually read the details and realised it was from an anti-LTN lobby group and the council was about to greenlight funding for it and create a huge issue for themselves. From P3Girls post it seems the application was submitted on the basis of "well if you are happy to fund pro-LTN activities in the closed streets will you fund some anti-LTN activities too in the displacement streets in the spirit of democracy and fairness". So rather than fraud, as Cllr Newens and Leeming are suggesting, could it be that council incompetence led to the funding getting tabled at the meeting? The way the councillors are trying to backtrack on this does suggest that they are trying to deflect blame onto others. Interestingly, Cllr Leeming's long list of reasons not to fund it reads like a list of technical faults rather than a dissection of whether trying to do anything for the roads most affected by the displacement from LTNs is legitimate. BTW, out of interest, did the legitimate CAD group receive any funding from the councillors in this recent round?
-
SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road
Rockets replied to tomszekeres's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
Very telling this line from that Tyre Extinguisher website: Locate an SUV. In towns and cities, you won?t have to walk far to find one. Target posh / middle-class areas. It's like Class War for cars...... I love the caveats in bold they have on their site: Avoid: Cars clearly used for people with disabilities, traders? cars (even if they?re large), minibuses and normal-sized cars. They also seem to be encouraging their followers to damage the tyre by wedging something in the vale: To get the air out of the tyre, there must be something pushing down on the pin located in the center of the valve. Drop a small bean (we like green lentils, but you can experiment with couscous, bits of gravel, etc) inside the valve cap. Replace the cap, screwing it on with a few turns until you hear air hissing out. Even if it?s only hissing out a little bit, that?s enough - it will deflate slowly. The whole process should take about 10 seconds. The sooner these idiots get arrested/a visit from the police the better - if everyone decided to take direct action on any cause they felt passionate about the world would be a very dangerous place. -
rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is a one point measure, it has only had one > > measurement and therefore change cannot be > > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. > All > > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this > road, > > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED > Grove > > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on > > EDG and it is the main route for children to > > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' > > questioning world than an appearance of blindly > > following dogma without question or inspection > of > > skewed data. > > I have actually called for local PT, bike > lanes, > > to keep school road timed closures and I > support > > road pricing. > > > > Telling people what they think, calling them > > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is > > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this > > subject. > > The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central > (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% > decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. > The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne > Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove > the restrictions on through traffic would increase > traffic around the school. The monitoring data for that EDG Central section is based on modelling and is highly suspicious - there was no actual monitoring in place in Sep 19 - Sep 21 is the first time there has been actual monitoring in place in that section of road. There was monitoring on a different section of road in Jan 19 and the council has taken those numbers and added nearly 3,000 vehicles (they have not explained why) to create the Sep 19 figures. Those modelled Sep 19 figures have been compared to Sep 21 to create the "reduction". If you take the original Jan 19 figures and compare them to Sep 21 there has been only a slight reduction so without the 3,000+ modelling numbers added by the council there would be no reduction. Until the council explains their modelling and methodology you need to treat the "20% reduction" claim with a huge pinch of salt. It's a modelled number that has no grounding in fact.
-
SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road
Rockets replied to tomszekeres's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with diesel (as the labour government > that led the dash to diesel neglected to tell us) > is NOx emissions, not carbon emissions. > > If people are concerned about carbon specifically > there are other far more anti-social activities > with a high carbon foot print that get completely > ignored. Like dog ownership. A typical dog has the > same annual carbon foot print as a range rover. > And many dog owners have no civic responsibility > at all, leaving sh*t all over the pavements and > parks and letting their dogs p*ss on people's > private property and all over the street. > > Why aren't people going round deflating dogs too? Might I suggest that the brilliant idea of deflating dogs doesn't satiate the bizarre self-absorbed virtue-signalling needs of the type of person who feels compelled to go and deflate someone's car tyre to "disarm" it? Disarm it....really....talk about tone deaf given the current crisis in Ukraine. It's a special kind of person who engages in such direct action and thank goodness there aren't more of them else the world would be an even scarier place. -
redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's only a waste if the policy of less road space > for cars is rolled back, and it won't be. So your > point is moot. Surely, it will have been a waste of money if it hasn't worked, hasn't delivered on the council's objectives or actually made the problem worse....
-
SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road
Rockets replied to tomszekeres's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
And I feel many of these attacks are utterly misguided, often the motivation and catalyst for them is a belief in the lazy narrative pushed by some that "the car is the problem" when it is, in fact, all vehicles that are the problem. Granted the case for huge SUV ownership is very limited and they have become a status symbol but that doesn't justify anyone damaging them and putting the occupants and other road users at risk as a result of their blinkered foolishness. If I remember rightly buses, coaches and taxis were/are responsible for the largest share of NO2 and PM3 output in the capital and if you look at TFL's own figures on vehicle compliance with ULEZ rules cars are not the biggest problem. In fact, according to TFL's own Air Quality in London report from October 2020 TFL buses had 0% vehicles that were non-compliant to ULEZ, only 9% of HGVs and 10.9% of cars were non-compliant. The issues are when you look at taxis (71%), vans (36%) and non TFL buses and Coaches (23%) that had/have the highest level of non-compliance. Of course, this was pre-ULEZ extension but it really shows how targeting cars may be being motivated not by an understanding of the problem you are actually trying to tackle but something more ideological. -
Yes I think those that support the council need to be very careful about questioning whether OneDulwich have spent their money wisely....people who live in glass houses etc.... Does anyone know how much the council has wasted on these projects? I know they will claim it's not "their" money as it was funded from central government but it is still "our" money.
-
SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road
Rockets replied to tomszekeres's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
"Yeah, but...direct action blah blah blah"...the usual defence from the usual suspects... It's time a few people started putting commonsense ahead of personal ideaology and recalibrated their right and wrong compass. -
SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road
Rockets replied to tomszekeres's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
My, to see some people coming on here to somehow justify people vandalising cars is beyond belief. The "yeah but" community is seemingly strong in the pro-LTN community. At least Cllr Newens had the commonsense to point out that what these people are doing is incredibly dangerous as it can degrade the structural integrity of the tyre. But for some it seems completely justifiable to "make a point". I think it is time some people took a look in the mirror and decide whether this really is what we think people should be doing to make a point. It's idiotic and no-one should be condoning it. -
It appears a lot of people are having their SUVs "disarmed" by climate activists in the Dulwich area - really idiotic and dangerous behaviour by whomever is behind this - a lot of vehicles have been targeted across Rosendale Road, Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. Whatever your views on SUV ownership keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing this as the person/persons need to be stopped as this is incredibly stupid. Perhaps this is the next step on from pulling down anti-LTN signs....
-
And Heartblock what many seem to forget is what we were all told repeatedly at school that sometimes it's not the answer that's important but how you got there....... The reason why Southwark refuses to engage on this issue is exactly this - the answers they have got don't stand-up to any scrutiny as to how they got to them.
-
goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything > up once and for all' because your assertions are > conjecture too. We need the council to confirm > that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think > they are because they don't follow the adjustment > figures stated. > > There was a count in the section between MG and > Townley near to the health centre. It may not > have been in exactly the same point as the Sept > 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same > section - so that 'in a different place' is doing > some heavy lifting in that sentence. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Let's just clear this up once and for all - the > > EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny > and > > showed be treated with extreme caution. > > > > Here's why: > > > > There was a count (in a different place on the > > road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" > that > > figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was > not > > based on an actual count). They, without any > > explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to > > 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a > > count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 > one) > > counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the > > "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. > > > > Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure > to > > create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would > have > > been negligible. > > > > So, until there is a clearer explanation from > the > > council on why they made such a large upwards > > adjustment to the figure then I don't think > anyone > > should be using the EDG Central figure of any > > proof of anything. > > > > The "reduction" is, basically, modelled. Goldilocks but I can. The basis for my analysis is fact based. According to the council's own reports there was no actual count in Sept 19. The council states that in both their Data Monitoring Appendix (slide 4). Take a look and you will see that it clearly indicates only two data collections for EDG Central - Jan 19 and Sep 21 and then in the council's traffic flow analysis document it says: Slide 45: Pre-implementation data for January 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability Slide 46: Directional analysis compares Jan 19 to Sept 21 - no mention of Sept 19.
-
Let's just clear this up once and for all - the EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and showed be treated with extreme caution. Here's why: There was a count (in a different place on the road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not based on an actual count). They, without any explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one) counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have been negligible. So, until there is a clearer explanation from the council on why they made such a large upwards adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone should be using the EDG Central figure of any proof of anything. The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.
-
Do the pro-LTN lobby have to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't whole-heartedly support their views? The moment someone mentions Cllr Burgess and flags that she seems to be taking a sensible approach and asking the questions we would all want any of our councillors to ask the attacks on her commence. It's all very sad and quite scary that this has become so polarised. Anyway, anyone else noticed how the council are having to send traffic enforcement officers to the newly opened junction to try and stop Hamlet school drop off parents from parking and blocking access for emergency vehicles? And people say it is just the private schools that have a problem with the school drop......
-
Ha ha....I wondered how long it would be before the Melbourne Grove fans bit on the suggestion of bars and nightclubs along the road! Brilliant. I know it was said in jest but it would make sense, some of those empty frontages would be great for a club....not since the heady days of Inside 72 have we had any proper dingy dive bars in Dulwich attracting a clientele that resembles those seen in the cafe scene in Star Wars;-) Anyway Cllr Burgess seems like the only sensible councillor in the area - from the beginning I have sensed she hasn't fully bought-in to the LTN plan narrative and is seemingly swimming against a tide of "toe the party line" pressure that so many councillors have muted themselves over. From 58 minutes in the council meeting she makes some really important points about measurement and properly assessing the impact. She also, very refreshingly references, Cairns and Goodwin (that is often cited by pro-LTN lobbyists about proof that 11% traffic evaporation can be achieved by such interventions) that actually in 84% of cases they looked at traffic increased on alternative routes. She says, very sensibly, that the council needs to look at journey miles and the impact of LTNs on that. I love the fact she poses a question to Dale Foden who legs it from the meeting (to be fair to him he was packing up for some time before she posed the question but he didn't hang around to answer the tricky curve ball....). She also sensibly says we should not conflate traffic and congestion and she says the council needs a data person to number crunch all of this info to give the council and public confidence of what is actually happening. Which suggests to me she doesn't have a huge amount of confidence that what the council is putting out there is completely accurate. I wonder what she thinks about the EDG Central number "miracle". I wish she was my councillor, she would win my vote because she is trying to get the council to do what many of us hoped they would.
-
You may be right as the space was certainly empty for the days after the council created the emergency access route and it is only the last day or so that the car has appeared. I presume then that the council would need to contact Car Club to get them to remove it before the bay can be removed.
-
The car club bay is still there, has not been moved and is blocking emergency vehicle access when filled with a car. A Car Club car is currently parked in it. Why? Because it is still marked as a Car Club Bay and people using Car Club are told to only return their cars to a marked Car Club bay?.which it still is?.. Looks like another council oversight??.
East Dulwich Forum
Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.