Rockets

Welcome back @malumbu!

Does anyone know why the researchers chose to do one report in 2021 that looked at LTNs installed in a very specific time frame yet (let's call them the Covid LTNs) yet the new report extends to "LTNs" installed from 2015? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows The post-Covid LTN is a very different beast to something installed in 2015. Councils used Covid social distancing and emergency powers given to them to install LTNs because they could not get support for them under OHS. What does an LTN in 2015 look like compared to one in 2021. Is that confirmation bias? Or dataset bias perhaps?

@first mate with this administration silence is often defeaning and a sure sign something is up. Or it could be caught up in the Cllr McAsh chaos. @Earl Aelfheah what happens when you use lobbyist as a verb.....?

Because Corbyn's hard left version of Labour was totally unelectable and failed spectacularly when faced with an electorate beyond Islington. I know it pains left Labour but traditionally centre-left to centre-right is the sweet spot to win elections. Glastonbury serenading Corbyn ahead of the 2019 election was not the beginning of the revolution but the sign that it was all over.

I really dont know why this is proving to be so challenging....it's a really simple question.

Oh my....careful, someone might replay that to you in relation to cars....;-)

@Earl Aelfheah does the paper address my questions? Go on....gives us a clue....;-) Some might think you're avoiding providing an answer for some reason.....

You know that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of all total tax in the UK right? If they leave who picks up the tax slack? This is an inconvenient truth ignored by many. This is why Labour did a u-turn on non-doms because they started leaving and left the Treasury with a growing tax hole to fill.

To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers. A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.

I used to enjoy his interactions when he frequented this forum but his political aspirations and ambition went far beyond Goose Green. Ward councillor always felt like a stepping stone and so it proved to be - a stepping stone that fell away and plunged him into shark infested waters! Fascinating to watch what his next move will be.

TFL has been, and continues to be, used as a political football by both parties for a long time - to pretend otherwise is politically naive.

But you are not reading my question properly are you? The 2021 report appears to have looked at exactly the same thing as the recent report - the reduction in accidents. But with far more LTNs included in the post-2021 report. I am not sure why this is proving be so hard to answer - are we to presume/do we know if these 40+ LTNs were additional LTNs installed since 2021? It's a simple question that I am sure must be answered somewhere in the report.

Any answers anywhere to the questions I posed (pasted below to remind you): Just start doing the math, look at the areas where LTNs have been deployed (I did also notice that the first Peter Walker/ Goodman research article in 2021 did analysis of 72 LTNs - installed during Covid - and the most recent looked at 113 LTNs so are we presuming that since 2021 another 40+ LTNs were put in or have the researchers expanded to LTNs installed before Covid and, as such what do they define as an LTN?).

Politicians particularly so....remember it's always party before people! I doubt McAsh will be in cabinet much longer...he might find even more attempts to kneecap his political career. I wonder if he might have to move to another area and restart - he obviously has political ambition but it seems Southwark is not going to be where it blossoms anymore - unless he can manage some sort of coup.

To be fair @snowy Sadiq did this time round because between the Tory government and Labour government he suddenly decided he needed to ask for 50% less money....https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o

You dont have to be a Lobbyist to be a lobbyist! Would you not agree that many of your posts are lobbying for the benefits of active travel/LTNs and that you take strong positions against anyone who does not subscribe to your particular view on the matter?

I would definitely categorise you as an active travel lobbyist (in the same way I have no doubt you categorise me as anti-LTN) given your propensity for defending and promoting anything and everything the council says on the matter and the way you aggressively, and relentlessly, argue with anyone who dares suggest a different perspective. To be fair you do also claim to subscribe to a paid-for service to receive Anna Goodman reports on LTNs which does suggest more than a casual interest in the matter! 😉

Oh another click bait headline? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-cycling-tsar-will-norman-idiots-motorists-red-light-jumping-b1238425.html

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists...I dont need my big boy pants to post that...goodness me! I think that is pretty obvious - lets also ground this conversation on the nonsense accounts set-up like LTNBooHoo, RaptorTruckMan etc which were just set-up (I suspect probsbly by posters with other aliases) to troll anyone who dares disagree with the active travel propaganda posted by some. ....as I was saying...

@Earl Aelfheah perhaps everyone should get badges....;-) I am happy to proclaim that I am not an active travel lobbyist!

But it did not show majority support for the DV LTN did it? That's how you were trying to use it and you got caught and it is you who are trying to weedle your way out of it - unsuccessfully I hasten to add. Do you acknowledge then that there was majority opposition to the DV LTN in the consultation report? @DulvilleRes you clearly think I have something to do with One Dulwich. For the umpteenth time I don't. If you think I do, by all means, say so but this innuendo is becoming very boring. I suggest you have nothing more to go on than a hunch but your hunch is wrong. I believe One Dulwich is doing a great job stopping folks from sweeping a load of stuff under the carpet....five years on and all that! Bravo to them and if it annoys a few of the usual suspects that this is happening then even more bravo to OneDulwich! It does and it is up to other road users to respect this and the whole point of this thread is in relation to the increasing number of cyclists who seem not to know or respect that fact.

What, a bit like your majority support for DV LTNs false assertion where you clearly hadn't read the whole report...;-)

Yes indeed, will he still sit in cabinet under her? Or does she get to do a reshuffle?

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah there are lots of people who post solely positive articles on cycling...yet you don't seem critical of them doing so....why might that be? I mean, have you ever posted something critical of cycling or anything other than something in glowing support of LTNs? Be thankful some like me are on here posting articles for the sale of balance! Forums tend to be better when they aren't just vehicles of propaganda! 😉 But i do also think it is interesting that you automatically jump to assessing articles as negative and use it as some sort of crux to attack me with. The article was highlighting measures being considered in what is widely accepted as the leading cycling country and I dont think was particularly negative in tone. The issue, and the flagging as it being "negative", is seemingly based on the sensitivity amongst many in the pro-active travel community in having to address anything that might suggest there are issues that might need addressing. It is this knee-jerk reaction that leads many to believe that there are some who just dont want to have to deal or discuss any of the issues people are raising - that the head-in-the-sand approach is best.

And you're still refusing to help me answer the questions....that's not very helpful is it? Oh well...