Rockets

I am not sure I have and even if I have the Malumbu question validates my position surely? No there was not - you're combining two very separate categories - "support" but "support with changes" are two very distinct categories and, as I said before, a free pass for the council to say "well we made a change so that satiates that group of people so we must have their support now". As I have said a lot of times before - potential manipulation of council consultation processes where people who do not have to live with the impact of an intervention can influence the decision-making process based on nothing more than their own ideology or because a lobby group told them to. Surely that is something we all think needs to be eliminated?

But by default East Dulwich residents are also Southwark residents are they not? So, let's take the case of @malumbu and their response to the consultation - they are a self-professed Lewisham resident, clearly don't live close enough to have got a flyer so where do you think their response went? It is an odd distribution because the other category responses are spread more evenly - the overwhelming support for the changes from that group is a statistical anomaly - it was exactly that, on a larger scale, that was the catalyst for the Lambeth cull of responses ion the Railton Road consultation - an odd grouping of responses.. You say "only" 26 people living on the road objected but "only" 23 supported it and "only" 24 supported it with changes. So, as I have said before, and for fear of having to repeat myself, the objections were the highest response of any of the 3 categories from those who lived closest to the road - that is undeniable.

As a cyclist I think it is a number of things: 1) not losing forward momentum 2) trying to get ahead of traffic before the lights go green for other vehicles 3) an ignorance that the red lights don't/should not apply to cyclists. It's interesting because back in 2007 (and I can't determine if they have done one since) TFL did a cyclist red-light jumping survey of a number of sites across London and found that 1 in 6 cyclists were jumping red lights and concluded then that it was not "endemic" but that "at this level may encourage more to do so in the future". I do wonder what the level is now and from unscientific observations I would say it is a lot higher than that now - I have actually been chastised by other cyclists for stopping at/waiting at red lights.

Police do seem to be taking a more proactive approach to enforcing rules for cyclists. I know City of London police have been doing it a lot but I saw a load of PCSOs lingering around the junction of Chelsea Embankment and Albert Bridge last week and saw that they were jumping out and grabbing cyclists who were jumping the red lights - I couldn't see if they were issuing PCNs or just giving warnings.

You'd better take that up with @malumbu as he was the one who made that claim. No point going over and over the point of the thread as that is clear for anyone who cares to read it and the data is there in black and white - the very odd distribution of positive responses of those not resident of Southwark or Lewisham. Perhaps it is a statistical anomaly or perhaps LCC and Southwark Cyclist lobbying efforts swung it in the council's favour - I mean the thread also acknowledges that people on both sides have been trying to manipulate the process - and I though we had all agreed there needs to be a more grown-up approach taken to consultations. My personal feeling is that councils were happy to turn a blind eye to interference when it suited their agenda but keen to police when it didn't. Also, on the subject of whether the cycle lane was a good investment still waiting for someone with the Strava data to share it because apparently it's perfectly reasonable to make a claim that the cycle route is well used because "a quick look on Strava shows tens of thousands of rides along there" and then when challenged to share the data suddenly Strava is "not representative" even though we were asking for comparative data with a cycle lane/route where we all can acknowledge has decent usage.

And the utterly ludicrous thing is the majority of people on both Calton and Townley voted against the CPZs during the consultation and both roads are probably two of the least densely populated roads in the borough and many houses have off-street parking. The council has clearly dropped a CPZ displacement bomb there to create problems elsewhere or as I like to refer to it CIPP (Council Initiated Parking Pressure)! It's utterly shameless - lose an area-wide consultation and come back straight away with a devious plan to roll it out anyway propped up by a few council-friendly lobby groups and locals.

@malumbu is the displaced traffic using Honor Oak Road? It makes sense it would be. Can anyone remember when the no right turn was implemented? I dont remember it being anything but.

@malumbu are you really advocating for the removal of what is, ostensibly, an LTN? And are you going to lobby for this based on the displacement caused by said "LTN"? Did I wake up in some sort of parallel universe where everyone changes side....? 😉

@march46 given 71% of Dovercourt Road respondents said no to the CPZ in the council consultation then it looks far more likely that my summation is for closer to reality than yours.... Its so transparent what the council are doing and it's scandalous. CPZ displacement and expansion of double yellow lines to force CPZs on residents. Someone should remind them they are here to represent their constituents not resent them. One day the electorate will get wise to it and punish them in the polls. Given that 66% and 74% of respondents on Calton and Townley also said no how on earth did the council gerrymander that decision? Given the weight of feeling against CPZs across the area this is a massive political gamble by Southwark Labour.

Well I think we can point the council to what has happened on the roads surrounding Calton and Townley since their CPZ went in - utter chaos and misery from those now having to live with the displacement. A lot of residents have emailed Margy and Richard and the response is along the lines of: "Yes we are aware of the increased parking problems as a result. Would you like a CPZ as well?" The fact they are doing this after they failed to get the area-wide CPZ plans in place shows what a bunch of untrustworthy charlatans they are - never ever trust a politician. One day I do hope constituents hold them accountable - next local elections may be interesting especially if they become victims rather than victors of a central government protest vote - and the way the Labour govenernment is going that could well be a stark reality for them - could well be a double whammy.

@geh they are clearly making things up as they go along. Not consulting businesses on the Eastern side of Lordship Lane is unforgiveable and clearly done to manipulate the process. This council is out of control and has to be held accountable - they repeatedly lie and mislead constituents. Can anyone trust anything the council says anymore?

Yes we need to take this up with Margy and Richard to understand what the plans are. They may have plans in place to move forward but if they did have a surplus this is the time of year those types of works would have been done - is it not?

The council can use money from PCNs on this type of thing, there is a category called Projects in Parks that they have spent revenue raised from PCNs etc on previously. I very much hope they find the money from somewhere.

@first mate this is why no-one wants to share the Strava data.....they can all see the numbers for themselves....

I suspect, if truth be known, it is probably very small compared to other comparable roads and you dont want to share it because it validates our statement that the two cycle lanes are not used very much at all. Have a great weekend!

@snowy here is the section in the Highway Code on Cycle Lanes - can't see a mention of 12mph anywhere.....where is that recommendation exactly? Come on - one of you Strava users must be able to share the data....why the reluctance to share it? Rule 61 Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.

That is such a shame. I do hope the council finds the money to replace it.

Ok then, pick a day and tell us how many went along it's entire segment - it will give us a good idea - maybe then pick another road like Calton Avenue to give a comparison. Well didn't the council's monitoring reckon between 3,000 and 4,000 car journeys a day are made along Turney post-LTN - pretty good ROI don't you think...how does that compare to the ROI or cost per journey for the Sydenham Hill cycle lane.....?

And what's the usual answer: A darn sight sooner than the cycle community will ever do! 😉 Who recommends not using them if you're cycling over 12mph - is that part of the Highway Code?

No but when I do pass there I never ever see anyone cycling on it. Come on, you have access to Strava, tell us what the average number of daily weekday and weekend cycle journeys are - I very much suspect it is not many at all. A daft analogy if there ever was one - the difference is of course the West Coast Main Line wasn't carved out of existing transport infrastructure was it or are those displaced horses we can see....;-) I tell you what though I would like to wager a bet with you that a single West Coast Main Line train carries more people on a journey than the Sydenham cycle lane does in one week. Come on, you have Strava...tell us!!! 😉

Therein lies the issue. People see so much money being poured into cycle infrastructure (especially at a time when council's are pleading poverty) people, understandably, start to question whether that money is being spent wisely when they see no-one using it. When journeys for thousands of people are being made more difficult because of infrastructure to support the supposed explosion in cycling and you see no-one using it really makes people question how sensible that investment is. I don't use Strava - can you see the number of daily journeys made? If so, I would be interested to hear what it is for Sydenham Hill and how that compares to other areas.

Be nice @Malumbu the forum rules require it.

Seemingly not so outrageous when you present evidence of wholesale manipulation of the Railton Road consultation. So can we just agree that the council consultation process is incredibly vulnerable to manipulation from anyone with a vested interest and that there needs to be wholesale reviews of the process? Within that I also think there needs to be a grown-up discussion about whether councils need to treat them more like local referendum and honour the feedback within them. It is the very best example of utterly pointless, ill-thought out and painfully under utilised cycle infrastructure - and really makes a point that even if you build it they may not come. I agree. The road actually feels more dangerous now than it ever did as it it forcing vehicles into the path of on-coming vehicles. If you get a large van or lorry parked on that road (a lot of building work going on there now too) it becomes blocked very easily. Like much of the council's new road infrastructure it's incredibly badly designed.

Thanks for clarifying as it very much looked like you were saying there were no plans for any additional cycle infrastructure and then when I presented my evidence that there is you had a sudden change of position and pivoted to a - well it's not because of that! 😉 The original consultation document definitely said that the pedestrian refuge needed to be removed to make way for the new advanced cycle boxes - it's was the reason why I started the thread back in January 24. It is good to see that the council are rectifying the right turn issue and returning the Dulwich Village junction to two lanes - the congestion and subsequent pollution has been awful for years because of the installation of the cycle wands. The council does seem to take multiple, expensive, attempts to get traffic infrastructure right.

Ex- here’s where your summary falls foul; the council put 900 flyers through the doors of residents living in the immediate area and they got around 75 responses - the distribution of which was consistently even between the three response categories. Now look at the responses from people we presume did not get a flyer (if they lived on the Bromley side of the hill) - it’s a much higher distribution towards support and supposedly happened organically without a call to action (a flyer) - that’s a statistical anomaly. Again this actually goes to show how the council manipulates the narrative. As I pointed out to Earl, you cannot combine support and support with changes to declare a majority. As easy as it is to say people who “support with changes” is positive validation of the council’s plans (which you, Earl and the council are doing) you could also equally say those people are not supportive until the changes they want are presented. Just saying oh we made changes doesn’t necessarily satiate that. To be honest the “support with changes” is a free-pass for the anyone running a consultation. Your illustration of the Railton LTN highlights exactly what I am saying - these consultations can be manipulated and people are trying to do so on many fronts. Clearly with Railton there were some odd submissions but if you speak to people who live there who were against the measures there is a feeling that by loosely culling nearly 35% (1,600 responses) of them they ensured they “won” the consultation - they managed to get a couple of the categories to 53% that then gave them the mandate they needed to roll it out. In any other business companies would mitigate against manipulation but councils seem loathed to do it because sometimes they like benefiting from it.