Rockets

Goldilocks - the Sep 19 figures was modelled. You've really got to stop pointing to the numbers and spend more time looking at where those numbers came from - do your own analysis and see if you can explain why the council took the Jan 19 figures (12.408 total vehicles) and used that to model the Sep 19 figures (15,315 total vehicles). They then compared the Sep 19 figures to the Sep 21 figures which were back down (12,675 total vehicles) - this is where the "reduction" on EDC comes from - without the "modelled" figures there is no reduction. Also, the council's starting point is very misleading as it doesn't take into account the 7.1% overall reduction in traffic across Dulwich since the pandemic so the "reduction" is out by at least 7.1%. Do you have any thoughts on that (I know you don't because you keep avoiding the question! ;-))

DulvilleRes - it doesn't take a genius to work out why some people take the stance they do on the LTNs. Maybe we should have a truth and reconciliation session where we all declare our hands.....let me go first...I used to live on a road that was experiencing the negative fallout from the LTNs and I was against them. I now live on a road that is experiencing the positive fallout from the LTNs and I am still against them. Your turn? In the meantime to fill the deafening silence that we hear all too often when the pro-lobby slinks back behind their planters hoping they don't have to answer a question here's the latest from One Dulwich.....;-) Traffic orders made permanent Southwark sent out an email on 11 February confirming that the experimental and temporary traffic orders we have all been objecting to for months (two-thirds of those who responded to the public consultation voted against them) were made permanent (with some minor changes) on 10 February 2022 and will come into effect on 17 February 2022. This isn?t surprising, but it?s nonetheless a sad day for local democracy. You can see the orders as published in the London Gazette. More than ?6.6 million paid to Southwark in fines An FOI to Southwark has revealed that 123,853 fines were issued in 2021 to vehicles going through the timed closures on Burbage Road, Turney Road, Dulwich Village and Townley Road, raising a total so far of ?6,623,517. Once all fines are paid (calculating 123,853 PCNs at the lower rate of ?65 each), the total will be more than ?8 million. With this kind of annual revenue, the financial benefits of continuing with the Dulwich Streetspace scheme must have been part of Southwark?s thinking. Legal opinion As you know, the Dulwich Alliance (One Dulwich is a member) has crowdfunded for legal advice. Now that the permanent orders have been published, work on a formal legal opinion has begun. There is only a six-week window (from 10 February 2022) in which a legal challenge can be mounted and, if there are grounds to proceed and the challenge goes ahead, significant funds would need to be raised extremely quickly. We will keep you closely in touch with what happens next. Local elections May 2022 One Dulwich is an apolitical campaign. We will, however, pass on information about whether candidates standing for local election in May are for or against the Dulwich LTNs. As far as we know, the Labour Party hasn?t selected any candidates yet. However, all our current councillors in Dulwich wards are Labour, and all have supported the LTNs so far. Cllr Leeming tweeted last month that he was delighted the Dulwich Streetspace scheme was going ahead and that it was ?the culmination of three years of hard work by @margynewens and I?. In Dulwich Village ward the Liberal Democrat candidates are Raghav Parkash and Richard Wingfield, and the Conservative candidates are Tristan Honeyborne and Clive Rates. Both sets of candidates have indicated to us that they do not support the LTNs. We are asking them further, more detailed questions about their positions on the Dulwich LTNs based on their initial statements, and will publish all the information on our website shortly.

I always thought they would give you the option to install a water meter but maybe that has now changed as they know people are wise to the fact that a house with more than a couple of people in it will likely end-up paying more. The advice from folks like Martin Lewis has been don't do it unless you have more bedrooms than people in the house so maybe Thames Water is taking the option away and looking to raise revenue on the back of it.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thought I had posted earlier but didn?t work, > clearly. Conways are at Court / Calton this > morning moving planters around to make way for > ambulances etc. Thank goodness - they have been delaying response times significantly despite the claims to the contrary from the pro-LTN lobby. The way the council have treated constituents has been shameful but the way they ignored the input from emergency services about not physically closing roads has clearly been endangering lives and is utterly unforgiveable. Putting ideology ahead of constituent safety is a massive blot on their collective copy books and I hope someone is held to account for ignoring the pleas of the emergency services to remove them sooner.

No, because most of the concerns voiced by residents said remove the closures. So that makes what they are suggesting both an admission that the measures did not deliver what was promised (else why make any changes at all) and nothing more than political tokenism....but personal opinions on that may differ from whichever side of the planters people live! Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they will be moving planters and putting > in cameras so that emergency services can go > through. > > Strange they?re having to do this when the > emergency services were consulted from the outset > and were perfectly happy with the closures. > > Oh that?s right - they weren?t. Yes a lot of the Streetspace newsletter is very carefully worded - plenty of use of the words "generally" and "most" in relation to traffic on main roads etc - a significant shift from the phrases used by the likes of Cllr McAsh at the outset about "all" and "every" road benefitting. The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped.

Kid, so sorry to hear this and I hope you and your dog are ok. Definitely inform both the RSPCA and police - in situations like this it is often unlikely to be the first, or last time, this dog will behave this way - which may go some way to explain why the owner was reluctant to share details.

A bit like drugs they are both dangerous and soon to be available on most street corners! Like drugs it is the medical and support services who have to pick up the pieces. Ask any hospital A&E and they will tell you how dangerous they are, but unlike drugs councils think it's a good idea to get more people using them. ;-) Today we were going to Soho for lunch and were at Loughborough junction at a red light in a cab and someone on an electric scooter stopped at the junction, ignored the lights and just accelerated across the junction. The acceleration was incredible and he flew across it, soon caught up cars heading up the road and he shot down the left-hand side of them. An accident waiting to happen. I am sure they are great fun but they are inherently dangerous and will cause more problems they solve and I cannot work out why councils think they are a good idea. You can probably tell I have no intention of using one....scooters should remain for exclusive use of small children! ;-)

Just reading the Streetspace propaganda flyer that dropped through our door (it's as close to an admission they made a mess of this as you'll ever get) and what does it mean when it says: Improved access for emergency services And then goes on to say: Replacement cameras mean there is new additional access for emergency vehicles to and from Carlton Avenue, Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Derwent Grove.

And many of the pro LTN lobbyists at all levels have been using that side-road "increase" figure as a rational for LTNs. In the same way that folks come on here waving the Dulwich monitoring numbers as proof of the success of the scheme without paying any attention to whether the data is accurate or at all trustworthy. The council knows that if they put "good" numbers out they will stick with their supporters and their supporters will never ask for anything to support the figures. It's called spin. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that!

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.