Rockets

You see this is why I am so angry about the council not being prepared to answer questions about the monitoring collection and methodology because they are using the monitoring as the reason why they are rejecting people's objections to the measures. If the monitoring data is flawed, as many of us suspect it is, then so is any decision to make the measures permanent. This may demonstrate why they are so keen to avoid any data scrutiny because the house of cards comes tumbling down.

And I feel that at each juncture the council has had to manipulate their approach because the results are not giving them what they want - the house of cards was tumbling from the outset and they have been desperately trying to propr it up with some "good news". Firstly the local consultation demonstrated clearly that the majority of locals* (*who responded for those who will claim the usual - you can't say that) disagreed with the council's approach and were against the current way the measures were implemented. Since then the council has been trying to negotiate a path by presenting "success" data that is fundamentally flawed and does not stand-up to any level of scrutiny and because they are refusing to engage it makes it look as if they have something to hide. The problem is that it's clear May will be a watershed moment for them - where their manipulation of the LTN process and data could well come home to roost and the narrative is fast becoming who will replace them in the local area - because they are powerless to do anything to manipulate that process.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No- I'm not, I'm talking about the data that was > released in the last council tranche of data which > showed that traffic outside Charter East Dulwich > and the Health Centre had actually fallen compared > to counts pre changes being made. > > Rockets keeps trying to undermine this data and I > can see that there are questions and I can't > answer them, but the fact remains that there is > data that shows a fall. > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There is no data that shows traffic counts > between > > Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen > from > > pre-LTN levels to the current date. I think you > > are confusing the so called "ED Central > > Northbound" 'data' that is from the Health > centre > > to the Harris School Northbound a mere 40 metres > - > > disputed figures at the best. > > ED Grove traffic along the whole road (which > had > > no turn-offs) has risen by at least 25% - > > Southwark Council data. A fine example of never let the truth get in the way of a good story perhaps? From the monitoring report methodology explanation there are more than enough questions to be able to question the validity of any of the data within the main report. It would be great if the council took time to address those questions and provide an explanation but they refuse to do so. Cllr McAsh never responded to the questions on his thread.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing to data that > shows that traffic on the section of road between > Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen. > > Data you choose not to believe - but still data > that exists. You present your opinion as fact > regularly. I use data. Still waiting for someone to try and answer my questions in relation to the council's data for that section of road - and don't forget the data has not been adjusted to take into the account the 7.1% area-wide reduction in traffic due to Covid! 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled. 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process? 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis? And I would add another: 7) Was the post-scheme data collected in school holidays? It clearly states that pre-scheme data collection for the whole area was conducted outside of school holidays yet does not make that claim for the post-scheme data. It's a big issue if it was in school holidays.

Very much not a good turn of phrase at all DuncanW. Between you and Waseley's comments you have illustrated how aggressive some people get about this subject - how tribal some people have become about cycling. I have been very balanced and clear about the points I was raising but some people took it as an attack on cyclists and demonstrated that aggressive tribalism that seems to be pitting cyclists against every other road user. As a cyclist I hate it, that the them vs us attitude exists amongst some in the cycle and vehicle communities. But thank you for apologising. My point was clear from the beginning - if you criticise the car driver (as I did) for throwing the bottle you have to criticise the cyclist for hitting the car. We don't know what happened further up the road, nor does Jeremy Vine, we can all guess but the cyclist should not be hitting the car - and let's be honest his body language is very aggressive and threatening and he hits the car with real force on the first occasion because you can hear it across a busy road - for all intents and purposes it will sound to the driver as if someone is trying to break the window. You can't default to the "well the driver must have done something to deserve that" attitude which so many have posted on here. P.S. I thought in the early part of the video the cyclist is reaching for the mirror but it looks like he may also be pointing at the driver - it's too grainy to tell upon closure inspection. But if I got that wrong then I apologise for that - he certainly hits the car window twice - once with massive force, the second time more gently - I can't help but think that it could have hurt his hand - as a cyclist in all weathers myself I can't imagine how hitting glass that hard with a cold hand would be good for you! Can we not all agree that both the cyclist and driver were wrong?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still waiting for a response to what Rockets said > about data manipulation by council. I think I must be right given the defeaning silence! ;-) Usually someone comes to the council's defence. A 7% swing would severely weaken their claim that the LTNs are a success. Throw into that the in or out of school holidays question between the pre and post scheme monitoring and the fact they borrowed some data on cycling from an "independent party", we presume Anna Goodman's cycling analysis which I think was dissected pretty convincingly when it was published, then the monitoring report has an unhealthy serving of smoke and mirrors. But of course no-one can ask the council as they refuse to engage with people on answering questions about the LTNs or the report.

Goldilocks - of course it is a tactical play. He is a politician. He, like every other councillor, will do what they think will get them votes. The same rational is why the Lib Dems are saying they are the only ones who can create a widespread shift in Southwark's overall control + they are playing that hand whilst the Tories play the we will make changes. What's not surprising is that they are both promising to listen to constituents - something they both know is the Achilles heal for Labour. The decision for the "anyone but Labour" vote is whether they want to try and destabalise the Labour control in Tooley Street or try to get the LTNs removed/redesigned. Given what is happening in other parts of the borough and tbe anti-Labour sentiment in some parts I do wonder if the Lib Dems might garner a lot of votes. Hopefully we will get to hear more substance from all candidates. Labour are clearly in trouble locally, hence their canvassing efforts over recent days. They know they have created a problem for themselves over the handling of the LTNs.....that small vocal minority might bite back in May!

My goodness me apparently I have issues and my head needs looking at....wow....not sure you can say that nowadays can you....? Try to keep it civil.....if you can't engage without being aggressive/demeaning it's probably best you don't bother.

But I have a point don't I? ;-)

Yes and I think any councillor has to adapt their views for council life - look at some of the incumbents and I am sure their personal/union/work views are not expressed/are restrained whilst in office.

It is going to be interesting to hear from all the candidates on their stance on LTNs (amongst other things) - although I suspect a lot of Dulwich folk will focus on LTNs as that is very much the issue at the heart of local life right now. I suspect all candidates will adapt their position to the one that they think will secure them the most votes. For example, I suspect LD candidates know they have to nuance their messaging around them as they have traditionally been supportive. Bottom line is a lot of people are waiting to determine where their vote against Labour will go in May.

First - that was the very point I was trying to make at the outset - how some on the pro-cycle lobby can't ever admit that, like we do for drivers, there are some idiots around who are giving everyone else a bad name. Unfortunately, many of the comments here show how real that problem is. A lot of the previous comments demonstrate how some seem to really struggle to see the world beyond a myopic view of "well, the driver must have done something to create the aggression therefore the aggression was justified". You can't justify aggression on the basis of "fear and adrenaline" for one party then attack the other party for responding when under the same duress. And that's where I take issue with Jeremy Vine on this (and some of the posters on this forum). Both the cyclist and driver were in the wrong (weighting more so to the driver because of their action of throwing the bottle) but you have to call out both sides if we are to make progress. We can all unite around calling out the behaviour of bad drivers but we also need to do the same in regard to bad cyclists - and not be afraid to do so for fear we are "letting our fellow cyclists down" somehow by doing so.

Agree the driver should have backed off but if there was a cycle lane why didn't you use it, surely then this incident would not have occurred and is the exact reason tbe cycle lane is provided? You're "no compulsion to use it" comment validates the exact point I was making (and it seems to me) the driver was making too. Would you have been conceding to intimidation if you had used the cycle lane? To be fair your use of language is again validating the point I was making.

Just did reread your post. You chose not to use the cycle lane and a driver, who also claimed to be a cyclist, remonstrated with you for doing so. Pretty clear to me and pretty clear why it demonstrates my point that much of the ire aimed at cyclists is self-inflicted. If infrastructure has been provided why not use it - it's there for a reason and that's yours, and others', safety?

But Kid?.the council?s numbers don?t lie do they??.;-) Per first mate?s question earlier no-one is challenging my conclusion that the council?s numbers do not reflect the area-wide 7.1% reduction in traffic that Southwark claim to be due. If that is correct, then all of the reduction numbers are wrong and are creating a misleading picture of what is actually happening and explains why many, yourself included, aren?t seeing the supposed reduction with your own eyes. Why, because it doesn?t exist to the levels the council are claiming. There are also big questions marks on when the council collected the data for the monitoring report because the methodology document they put together states that all of the pre-scheme data was collected out of school holidays yet does not make the same claim for the post-scheme data. This report looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors designed to validated the council?s pursuance of the flawed LTN strategy.

And I would be prepared to put money on there having been zero reduction in car ownership within the LTN closed roads since they went in, one of the many objectives of the LTNs that have failed to materialise.

Northern and Wasely - in two posts you demonstrate why so many people are taking issue with cyclists at the moment. 1) Northern - you fail to acknowledge that the cyclist was in the wrong. He was as much of an idiot as the driver but you defaulted to that Pavlovian "the cyclist is never wrong" that so many pro-cycle default to. He hits the car window twice with force, he may even have hit the wing mirror (the noise is very loud as it is picked up by Jeremy's mic from the other side of the road) and it looks like he is trying to break the window and or mirror. The drivers' reaction is as bad as the catalyst for it but you cannot defend the cyclist, as much as I am not defending th driver. 2) Wasely - the "no compulsion to use it" narrative is one that also grinds on other road users at the moment (it's a close second to the "I can so I will whether I need to or not" - ride two abreast/ride in the middle of the road + narrative). When I cycle I am mindful of other road users and if there is infrastructure I use it. I presume you can't see how frustrating it would be to be stuck behind a bike using a carriageway that has cycling infrastructure along it? I suspect as a cyclist himself he felt that you didn't need to be doing that and that he would have been in the bike lane. As I have said before if every road user treats others as they would like to be treated then everyone could get on swimmingly but there seem to be a lot of my fellow cyclists who seem to think that following the rules and needing to consider other road users does not apply to them.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waseley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As > someone > > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot > it's > > a little confusing. Your case would be > stronger > > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than > > make cheap comments for the pro car community. > > Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot > of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect > in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be > corrected. > > It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for > all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich > Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with > several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside > their vocal support for more through traffic on > side streets, they are committed > environmentalists, as the signs suggest. Rahx3 I do not own an SUV and I cycle, in fact you will probably see me and my family on our bikes most weekends - so better luck next time on the character assassination?;-)! Now, am I wrong in my assertation that the council's traffic reduction numbers are misleading as they have not factored in tbe 7.1% Southwark-wide reduction in traffic caused by the pandemic? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ex- my point is very clear. The council are > comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme > and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the > conclusion that the LTNs have been a success > because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic > numbers. > > But they also acknowledge in their "helpful > background note" (your words and I love the > wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the > post-scheme numbers they have published will have > been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% > decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark > which has nothing to do with the LTNs. > > If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to > start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and > compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one > set of figures to create a level playing field. > Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or > adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in > traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim > that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the > Southwark area reduction in overall traffic. > > At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively > benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those > are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby > are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the > LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% > lower to start with - do you not agree? Rahx3 - speaking of which any comments on the above? Am I wrong or am I right? If I am right then you can clearly see how the council is manipulating the data they present to try to skew the narrative in their favour.

I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door was imploring people to vote for them locally to have influence on the Southwark wide picture as they are saying they are the only party that can start to call Labour to account at the council level. Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it from both camps....they created a new "third rail" for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I initially thought and I wonder if we might see the Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes. I think Labour are in big trouble locally but, let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou" approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like their approach where they seem to think they are the only form of transport that should be allowed to use roads. Many of them talk about driver entitlement yet display the same signs in regard to cycling. The recent debate around the new Highway Code has been demonstrating this. There is so much misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people are actually going to get injured as a result. For example, the give way to cyclists continuing ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible directive but the way it has been positioned by both sides of tbe argument is actually leading cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left. So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of cyclists following - they need to give way to the left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning that. And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory comments about a vehicle being "specifically designed to kill children" and continuing his own "war on cars". Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy chastises the driver not the cyclist. We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not the other and I am glad to see some police starting to police the bad cyclists who are tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the moment I am afraid to say.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ---------------------------------------. I would > much prefer to > > hear about what is being done to resolve the > > problems rather than photo op after photo op of > > her outside various sorting offices. > > > "Photo op after photo op"? How many have there > been? Quite a few....started in 2018 and have been a regular occurance (lots on her blog as well)...gone into overdrive the last few weeks.... Seems to be a lot of grandstanding going on by our local councillors on the issue yet no-one seems to be able to tell us what is going on or when it will be fixed. Perhaps they are powerless to do anything as it is a private company and clearly a management vs union/employee issue.

A week is a long time in the world of a pro-cycling lobbyist/antagonist and journalist...;-) Jan 31st https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-editorial-cycling-licences Feb 5 https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1489874544462602240?t=mNIqp-7mJmLYHJPvOr1rDA&s=19

To be fair she has been visiting the sorting offices to try to resolve the issue for nigh on two and a half years now.....and it has been getting worse not better. I would much prefer to hear about what is being done to resolve the problems rather than photo op after photo op of her outside various sorting offices. Charlie Smith was on here saying we should expect some updates....has anyone heard anything?

Helen Hayes visited another sorting office ...does anyone know what she does when she gets there or are these just photo ops?