Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not > 'awaiting peer review'. Almost every published > academic in this area gets accused of 'bias' in > this debate and it's nonsense. ...accusations of bias are very easy when you have have been an employee of the London Cycling Campaign - it kind of goes with the territory unfortunately...you lose all rights to claim impartiality and balance the moment you go on the payroll....and Rachel would have known that when she took the role. It actually came up in a FOI request made to TFL as to whether Rachel Aldred had declared a conflict of interest when she was commissioned by TFL to do a study as she was in her role at the LCC at the time (2012 - 2018). TFL wasn't able to answer as it would have exceeded the ?450 limit set on hours spent on an FOI request to find it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Rockets, > > I am not sure you're right about this. According > to TFL Quarter 4 of the 2018/19 financial year saw > an increase in the average daily cycle-km in > central London of 4 per cent with respect to the > same quarter in 2017/18. Across the whole of > London, 2018 saw the highest growth observed in > cycling volume since monitoring began (in 2015), > increasing almost 5 per cent from the previous > year and exceeding for the first time on record an > average daily volume of more than 4 million > cycle-km. > > Also, Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at > the University of Westminster with over 25 peer > reviewed papers. I am right about this ;-) Over the course of the 10 years from 2008 growth was significant but it slowed from 2017 onwards and declined in 2019. Even the document you linked to (which is the year preceding the report where a 3% drop in cycling was seen) it says: Although the pace of change has notably slowed in recent years, the overall trajectory of growing travel demand and a progressive shift towards active, sustainable and efficient modes ? familiar over the last two decades ? is being maintained. And then goes on to note: However, further findings suggest that the demographic profile of people using these new cycle routes is not significantly different to that of the general population of people who cycle in London, and hence further work is necessary to make cycling more representative and accessible to a wider demographic group. In other words saturation point was being achieved within the traditional white male middle-aged cyclist demographic and this was why growth had slowed/declined.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I mean, it doesn't seem that crazy that a cycling > charity looking to develop a transport policy, > might want to engage an award winning public > policy expert. Might want to engage or retain....there is a big difference between the two and once you're on the payroll then you lose all claims of impartiality I am afraid. Anyway, we've been round and round in circles on Rachel Aldred so there's little point dragging it out again as I can't stand another discussion on what awaiting peer review means.....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > doesnt her mum live on calton? > > > > when the review comes we need people involved > with > > a fresh objective eye. > > Rachel Aldred? I didn't know that. The problem is > as shown above - most of those who publish proper > research in this area are dismissed as > 'activists', because it all tends to point in the > same direction when it comes to the best ways to > encourage walking and cycling and reduce our > reliance on cars. It's not making car use as > convenient and comfortable as possible. They are dismissed as activists when they are activist researchers. Remember Rachel Aldred was a trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and headed their policy unit. So, her starting point is not entirely impartial. So I take her research with a hefty pinch of cycling salt ;-)

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Redpost - sorry to be the one to break it to > you > > but I am not making things up....pre-pandemic > > cycling levels in London had levelled > > off/declined. > > > > Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) > > Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) > info > > from TFL. In fact, your Wikipedia link actually > > shows when the plateau started after 2017 - > you'll > > notice the Wikipedia figures declining from 730 > in > > 2016 to 721 in 2017. There had been a big > increase > > prior to 2017 but growth had levelled off and > even > > declined (despite more cycle lanes and routes > > being installed). > > > > Many, including TFL, have acknowledged that > cycle > > usage in London had, pre-pandemic, stopped > > increasing. In fact, in their last Travel in > > London report TFL reported that cycling had, in > > 2019, decreased by 3% year-on-year (but they > did > > suggest this was down to the counts being done > in > > bad weather). > > But there again in autumn 2020, 7% up in inner > london, 22% in outer london > > A statistical aberation does not make a trend > > https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2 > 021/january/outer-london-sees-22-per-cent-rise-in- > cycling-as-new-data-further-highlights-vital-role- > of-active-travel > > It's very clear that pro-active travel policies > increase cycling. Quite right Redpost - the statistical aberration of the corona-virus pandemic, when everyone was at home and cycling, should not be counted as a trend. You might not want to believe it but prior to coronavirus the year-on-year trend was flat/declining - and that comes from TFL. Why do you think that was the case? There are many who think that it had reached saturation point - that London is too large a city for the growth in popularity in cycling to be maintained.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's such a complex issue and I don't think > those > > implementing LTNs have the first clue what the > > root of people's obsession/reliance on the car > is. > > Every city has grappled with the same thing. I > don't buy the 'it wouldn't work in London' > argument. There is lot's of research on how you > get people to be less reliant on cars. As long as > driving is the most convenient way to get about, > lot's of people will tend to chose the path of > least resistance. Rahx3 - do you have any examples of cities that have successfully managed the issue?

Redpost - sorry to be the one to break it to you but I am not making things up....pre-pandemic cycling levels in London had levelled off/declined. Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info from TFL. In fact, your Wikipedia link actually shows when the plateau started after 2017 - you'll notice the Wikipedia figures declining from 730 in 2016 to 721 in 2017. There had been a big increase prior to 2017 but growth had levelled off and even declined (despite more cycle lanes and routes being installed). Many, including TFL, have acknowledged that cycle usage in London had, pre-pandemic, stopped increasing. In fact, in their last Travel in London report TFL reported that cycling had, in 2019, decreased by 3% year-on-year (but they did suggest this was down to the counts being done in bad weather).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially > with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on > busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) > person, it's not appealing. We need to make it a > safe easy, every day activity and that means > reallocating some space away from cars and towards > walking and cycling. It's a small part of the > whole picture, but an important part. But again, > you can only do that if the minority of car > drivers give something up. I'm not sure they will. > Not really. Not to the extent required. Has anyone done any research into why commuting cycling has struggled to break out from the white male middle class lycra (full kit wally ;-)) demographic who spend ?10,000 on a bike that would be more at home in the Tour De France? London already has a significant network of dedicated cycle lanes and a huge amount of road space has been dedicated to cycle lanes over the last few years but not, apparently, (pre-pandemic) with a reciprocal increase in cyclists doing the daily commute. Does anyone know why? There are plenty of routes around the city that avoid the busiest roads (when I used to cycle to Hammersmith I easily found a route that was very pleasant and avoided all of the main roads) - it's not difficult to do but this is a mega city and maybe people just travel too far to consider cycling - I must admit cycling up and down Dog Kennel Hill every day on my way to and from Hammersmith I did question why I thought it was a good idea as the leg burn kicked in!! We live in a mega city where most people don't live near where they work, significant areas have poor transportation infrastructure and we live on a cool temperate wet island where most people are no more than a couple of hours away from family and friends by car. The car is an important part of most people's day to day lives and people won't give it up easily so we need pragmatic measures that share road space and encourage active travel - and LTNs are not about sharing road space they are about dedicating road space to one type of road user and pushing the car traffic elsewhere. It's such a complex issue and I don't think those implementing LTNs have the first clue what the root of people's obsession/reliance on the car is.

The junction of Goodrich and Hillcourt is very, very tight at the best of times and I am not sure how they would even get a lorry up Donkey Alley to fill - the weekly bin lorry has trouble enough. This is a nonsense plan that really needs to be stopped - they are digging half of the hill out. If anyone has any comments you can leave them here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/ The application is: 20/AP/2058 Looking by the number of objections last year I am not sure how the council can proceed even with these amended plans. Also from November of last year when the second application was submitted and everyone said they objected this rather odd post was added....something weird going on here I suspect and to say some of the positive comments look fake is an understatement..... Dear Zaib Khan I am writing this letter to confirm that as the owner of the property I am happy with the new proposed development that Barry De Swardt and RDA Architects have submitted. I wrote a letter stating that I was not happy with the original planning. He withdrew that plan. I thought it might be too big. Now it looks like somebody has copy and pasted my original comments on the planning portal and attached them to the new planning. This was done without my knowledge and as such I disagree with those comments on this new plan.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was blocked for counting the number of cyclists > in one of their pro photos. They do seem a little quick with the block button if someone demonstrates anything other than glowing support for the closures! ;-) But the problem is they actually harm their ability to engage with a broader audience because the "only allow comments from people you follow" is very much becoming the de rigueur way to determine whether someone has anything good to say or whether they are just a propaganda machine and it ultimately starts limiting your reach - you just end-up engaging with the same people all the time.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, they > do have a twitter feed but they don't use it for > any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc - > they use their website for that. > > Also - one group is supporting overall concepts - > cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying > to set council policy and was set up specifically > to be against the road changes. > > No idea about the twitter message function - not > sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty > sure that when I've received flyers from Clean Air > Dulwich that there has been an email address on > them. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich > > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich > > it's not locked/restricted to only those that > they > > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and > > comment freely - whether they agree or disagree > > with what is being said. > > > > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their > > twitter page and they have this habit that if > you > > challenge them on something they block you - > they > > were doing this routinely until they made the > > comment feature only open to people they > follow. > > Also their main website only has a sign-up page > > and no contact info. > > > > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much > less > > open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so > > maybe your super sleuth skills would be better > > deployed on trying to determine who is behind > > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-) Northern - OneDulwich and DA also support cleaner air and active travel - to suggest they don't is disingenuous - they just don't agree with the approach the council is taking to get there as they believe it doesn't solve the problem. And remember CAD and many of the other pro- groups were set-up as a lobbying tool for those who want more road closures. And to Heartblock's comment (and Heartblock please stay) the council has succeeded in one thing and one thing only and that is to divide a community. We have seen people cutting monitoring strips, we have seen people vandalising planters, we have seen people verbally abusing people who dare to voice anything other than unquestioned support for the closures, we have seen the council lock residents out of buildings whilst meetings take place to discuss the measures, we have seen people have signs in their garden torn down because they oppose the closures and now we have seen people taking photos of houses with anti-LTN posters in their windows and posting them on the internet. All of this could have been avoided if the council had done a half-decent job and engaged with everyone from the community from the outset. It could have been avoided if just one of our local councillors had stood up and been counted and went against the party line. But they chose not to. The responsibility for this mess has to lie with them but they are still missing in action and reluctant to try to address any of the mess they have created. The chickens will come home to roost for them eventually.

Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich it's not locked/restricted to only those that they follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and comment freely - whether they agree or disagree with what is being said. Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their twitter page and they have this habit that if you challenge them on something they block you - they were doing this routinely until they made the comment feature only open to people they follow. Also their main website only has a sign-up page and no contact info. Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much less open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so maybe your super sleuth skills would be better deployed on trying to determine who is behind Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

Northern - I am not sure what point you are trying to make. To receive the email from One Dulwich I have to register and subscribe - they don't just send the email to me unsolicited. When I have had a question for them I have emailed a different email address that they provide on their contacts page. When you register you are presented with a number of options on how your data will be used. Each person that registers, their postcode is used to display the number of supporters in each part of Dulwich. Does Clean Air Dulwich do anything similar - can I email them if I have a question? Who are they claiming to represent? I follow them but cannot contact them because they don't follow me. The bigger point you seem to be missing and the crux of the issue and why the reason why the council are trying to manipulate the review is that those 2,000 people (the majority of whom are local) represent a much bigger number of people than the council got to support their measures on the OHS consultation that was the basis for these closures (and that number is even bigger when you strip out the people from Islington, Hammersmith and further afield who decided to register their support for the OHS measures - which accounted for about 25% of the total votes in the consultation). So if we presume those 2,000 people are registering their objections via the review then the council and the LTNs are in big trouble and they know that - which is why they are trying to manage/manipulate a more positive outcome for themselves.

Just received an email saying the plans have been updated and resubmitted. That's still a huge amount of digging they are proposing - just how do they get the lorries in and out of Donkey Alley and Goodrich to move those tonnes and tonnes of earth - the disruption to local residents is going to be diabolical.

OneDuwlich and the Dulwich Alliance have both made numerous efforts to get the council to discuss other options but the council have steadfastly refused to entertain the discussion - one has to question why that might be the case. Why is it that the council don't want to hear representations from a group with over 2,000 local people signed yup as member 60% of whom live within areas that are perceived to be benefitting most from the closures (Dulwich Village and Goose Green). And on flyers etc there has been equal amounts of tone deaf messaging from a lot of the pro-LTN groups who are happy to present the Trumpton like state of parts of Dulwich Village yet wilfully fail to acknowledge that East Dulwich and Croxted areas live with the displacement. I actually think taking pictures of people's homes displaying anti-LTN posters (even if they happen to have a Chieftain tank parked on the driveway) is taking things way too far and it has clearly been a catalyst for some of the more fanatical elements of the LTN supporting brigade to follow Clean Air Dulwich's lead. You're banging on about who is behind OD and DA but does anyone have a contact for whomever is behind Clean Air Dulwich? At least with One Dulwich and the DA they have a contact email address on their website and don't hide behind a suppressed and controlled twitter feed that allows no-one, beyond the people they follow, the right of reply!

Rahx3 - deary me.... You might have failed to notice that the One groups are funded by people - mainly local people who are either directly impacted by the closures, care about the negative impact created by them or don't like the way the council is managing the process. So sorry to disappoint you but there isn't a shady petrolhead cabal trying to manipulate the process - the only manipulation is being orchestrated by the people who organised the closures in the first place - manipulating the review so they can try and validate their ludicrous initial decision-making process! Maybe the council should have put another option in to the review to really gauge the feeling of the local community, but they didn't and you have to ask why they didn't - I think you will find that it is because they know that they would have then had to admit defeat and implement that other option - and admitting they were wrong is something this council struggles to do.

Rahx3 - you do realise don't you that the review is deliberately flawed to give the council what they want? I would have loved it if the council had listened to us in the local community and put another option to "vote" for but they didn't but they said you can have this, something else, or nothing - and they never clarified what the something else was so how could anyone vote for it? We're not stupid. We know how this goes....you all voted for something else, says the council...here is that something else, they continued.....but we don't like what you are suggesting as something else, say the people....well, it's something else and that's what you voted for, the council responded. Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto? To deposition your narrative a little more below is the guidance from One Dulwich in an email to supporters and for people like me it is clear that the only way this council will engage in any sort of sensible dialogue with all members of the Dulwich community is by forcing them back to the table by pressing the nuclear option. Maybe if the majority of people vote for returning the measures to their previous state then the council will be forced to replace some of the people leading this flawed programme with council members who are more willing to involve everyone and run a fair and balanced consultation..... 3. In this crucial part of the survey, you will be asked to express your preference for each measure. We recommend you choose option ?a. Return it to the original state? for all the measures. This is because options b, c and d are just different ways of retaining the current flawed schemes, which are all inter-connected. See the Dulwich Alliance FAQs, which we support. And here is the link to the Dulwich Alliance FAQs which make the position very clear: https://dulwichalliance.org/surveyfaqs/ Pasted below are the first two FAQs which make their position quite clear. It's pretty clear - but I am sure it won't sway you from your position that all of the campaigning prior to the review about timed closures was all bluster and front as all along they wanted everything to return to normal...... Why is the Dulwich Alliance recommending respondents vote in this way? Southwark?s consultation isn?t designed to be fair and transparent. It doesn?t allow respondents to comment on the measures as a whole; it asks a series of overlapping and ill-defined questions, and is clearly designed to fragment the responses to allow the results to be manipulated. We think this is intentional, so in order to send a clear and unequivocal message to Southwark that this isn?t acceptable, we recommend voting ?Return it to the original state?, for all the measures. We believe this is the only way that the community and the council can come together to co-design a socially and environmentally just scheme that works for everyone. Does this mean the Dulwich Alliance just wants to go back to how things were? No. We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel. Southwark have failed to include any of these proposals in the consultation, even though they said they would. It has become clear to us that they simply want to shut roads, and have become fixated with the idea of a ?Dulwich Square?, leaving themselves with very little room for manoeuvre. It?s hard to see how a compromise can be reached at this stage, and so we think the only route forward is to emphatically vote down Southwark?s plans, in the only way allowed by their consultation, by voting ?Return it to the original state?.

Rahx3 - that's absolute nonsense and you know it. You've been an active member on this thread since the outset and so are well aware of the timeline and the campaigning that the likes of One Dulwich have been doing for ANPR timed closures so you've either developed a case of selective amnesia or are trying to re-invent history to serve your own purpose? You know full well that all of the groups were campaigning for timed-closures from the outset but the council refused to engage with anyone other than those in their own echo-chamber. What is true is that there are groups of local residents who are being routinely ignored and deprioritised as councils take input, guidance and consultation from vested-interested groups like Southwark Cyclists to determine local travel policy. Time and time again the council has put the views of those groups over anyone that has to live or work in the area and are going out of their way to try to ensure only supportive voices are heard. What makes me chuckle is looking back on this thread a few weeks ago and the pile on around the All Streets Matter debate posters and yet when Clean Air Dulwich start posting pictures of people's houses just because they are displaying a Clean Air for All poster we get this "I don't see an issue with this" narrative. You can't have it both ways. I would have challenged Clean Air for Dulwich about the picture they posted on twitter but they only allow people who they follow to comment so no-one outside of their echo chamber are allowed to comment. It's all getting a bit cult-like.

Rahx3 - no-one set out wanting to return things to the previous state. You know that. You also know, as well as everybody else does, that the review is being so manipulated by the council that people who want something other than what the council wants are being forced to vote for returning it to the previous state because the council have provided no other viable option. So please, stop the they want a removal of restrictions of car use nonsense. You know what's happening here so please stop trying to deposition them by playing that deliberately overly-simplistic narrative.

Northern - it's a worrying turn and cannot be accepted. It's clear what point Clean Air Dulwich are trying to make and it is incredibly passive aggressive and actually quite threatening. If that was your house I am not sure you'd be best pleased. As I said before it is a dangerous precedent to set and it seems, from the second tweet, that some are going to follow their lead and highlight the perceived "hypocrisy". But I am sure there are many who probably think it's acceptable. DC - nothing to say on Spartacus's comment - I don't agree with such comparisons but don't feel the need to comment on it. If there is proof that the council are going into schools to encourage and influence children to partake in the review then that is a different matter. I have no problem with the council bringing the review to everyone's attention but if, as is suggested, they are going out of their way to influence the result by lobbying schoolchildren when they have failed miserably to alert a lot of residents of the review then that would be disappointing, but not surprising from Southwark. They will seemingly engage in any underhand tactic to get the result they so desire. In my view councils should equally present both sides of the argument but, as had been seen during this process, it seems Southwark don't subscribe to that approach.

Seriously uncool of Clean Air Dulwich to post pictures of people's houses just because they are showing the anti-LTN posters. It seems some of their supporters are now taking this as a signal that they should be doing similar things if they think the posters are hypocritical because someone owns a car A dangerous precedent is being set by Clean Air Dulwich and they should remove that post and refrain from such gutter tactics. What next, people posting pictures of cyclists emerging from houses with cars on their drives? Clean Air Dulwich need to grow up a bit.

Sorry to hear that. It is well worth investing a small amount in an RF protected box (you can get them on Amazon)to keep car keys in (especially the newer advanced car keys) as thieves are able to bridge the connection if the car is parked close to the house and the keys are in close proximity.

Oh no, not (yet) another oversight by the council......how unfortunate that these oversights only ever seem to happen when there's anything related to the LTN review involved....! ;-) It's the brazenness of it that astonishes me....they operate like there is never any recourse. It's getting a bit like Liverpool City council and look what happened there......

Ab29 - it's part of the ever changing narrative from the council as they try to find ways to protect their LTNs. Firstly Cllrs, like Cllr McAsh, were saying if traffic doesn't reduce everywhere then the scheme will have been a failure and then they changed it to suggest that A-roads were made for more traffic and therefore, by default, increases there would need to be considered (one can only presume as an acceptable consequence of closing other roads). It suggests they are aware there is a problem with displacement and I also think this is why Cllrs have been suggesting there may need to be tweaks made. But it may be too late if enough people have been forced to vote for the "Return the measures back to how they were before".

Perhaps someone will add Thank You for Supporting local businesses .....because we certainly didn't. They have some front putting those up given the lack of any tangible support for the traders anywhere in Dulwich from the council. In fact they seemed to go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible for them.