Rockets

@march46 why is it so difficult for you to share the link to the public information you claim you have? I cannot find details of the works on the Southwark website, since the redesign of the website it’s impossible to find things now. Surely if the info you have is public and confirms what you are saying then sharing it resolves this, I am struggling to understand why you don’t share the link. So are you confirming that there are no longer plans for an advance cycle box - that’s what I meant when I referred to a cycle lane - it was clumsy language use by me - but that what was cited in the original consultation document as the reason for the need to remove the pedestrian refuges. I found this on the Dulwich Residents Association website that clearly shows the plans for the advanced cycle boxes, so are you confirming these are no longer in the plans?

What about the advanced cycle box? Would you mind posting the links to the information you have found as all I can find on the Southwark website is the following: The Red Post Hill/Dulwich Village junction, which was part of the Phase 3 consultation, is still being developed and we hope to implement this in early 2025. Page last updated: 10 September 2024

@march46 but the initial consultation document did say that the removal of the pedestrian refuge was necessary to accommodate the advanced cycle box didn't it? You seem to have a Iot of knowledge on all the council's plans around cycle infrastructure so can you tell us if the advanced cycle box still part of the works being carried out at the moment? Might this have been because there were never any cyclists using it? The addition of the wands did cause significant congestion in Dulwich Village and they had to add the right filter to relieve it didn't they?

Yes the council added the cycle wand lane at the junction heading from Dulwich Village to Red Post Hill and reduced two lanes to one then had to add the right-turn filter to the traffic lights due to the congestion the reduction to one lane was causing in Dulwich Village as cars could no longer pass to the left of traffic turning right onto EDG.

In summary: Apparently being on a thread and passing comment on what someone else said means that you actually said it as well and it can be used a stick to hit you with even when you never actually said it. Confused? Yup, not surprised. As I said, glad to see nothing has changed in the month I was away. No wonder admin is despairing of this part of the forum. It's probably beholden on everyone to try and up their game a bit and not descend into the cycle of nonsense that many of these threads descend into. I have been taking a new approach post suspension and suggest others do too - or perhaps admin needs to issue a few other suspensions to freshen the approach of others a little too! 😉 I stand by everything I have said on this thread....except the things I am accused of saying but never actually did of course! 😉

Thanks for confirming I never actually said what you accused me of saying - I will accept your apology.

The LTN created a big surge in Underhill being used as a displacement route around the congestion on Lordship Lane heading to the A205 - it's why many of us accused the council of deliberately not monitoring Underhill post LTN as they knew a huge volume of traffic was being displaced that way and why we said their monitoring was massively flawed - we were not wrong.

"Only" but that was more than those who "supported (23)" and more than those who "supported with changes (24)" - when you strip out the non-local submissions - so by that measure that was the most popular response. There is no misrepresentation of the table. I am not angry just questioning whether there was manipulation of the consultation data by cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed. @Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop - which was specifically called out in the original consultation documents (which of course no-one has been able to locate either despite telling me how wrong I am). The 5 year narrative is just a predictable diversion: time does not, and should, right a wrong if a wrong has taken place - just ask the victims of the Post Office scandal - there were many who were keen for time to make it go away (and before anyone tries to go there, let me save you the time, because I am not trying to compare the two in terms of gravity or importance! ;-)) No because that could constitute a personal jibe and lead to a suspension.....;-) Everyone just needs to be nicer to each other and respect the forum rules - admin will be proud of me!!! 😉

Come on Earl, like the council you're now manipulating the results. There are three very distinct response categories (Support, Support with changes, Do not Support) to which people are asked to respond to a plan of action published by the council. You cannot combine Support and Support with Changes and say that shows there is Support because by default someone who is saying I Support with changes is not supporting the plans as they were published. So whilst you are combining two seperate result groups together to get the result you want you can't do that because each has to be treated distinctly as each result needs a different path of action to be taken by the council. If you treat them in the spirit that consultations are supposed to be conducted (and strip out the non local borough residents) the result is: Support: 23 Support with changes: 24 Do not support: 26

No because if you eliminate the responses from the non-Southwark or Lewisham residents then Don't Support is the biggest response. Those 26 Support responses from people who live in neither Southwark or Lewisham swing it to Support and give the council the mandate they needed to proceed. Whether I am supportive of the changes or not is an utter diversionary irrelevance because the discussion and thread is whether people from outside Southwark or Lewisham unfairly influenced (on the basis of lobbying by cycle lobby groups) a local consultation and the evidence is overwhelmingly that they did. I still haven't heard any credible thoughts on what those 26 are other than non Southwark or Lewisham residents.

Northern....brilliant!

Because the original consultation document did call out needing to remove the central pedestrian refuges to facilitate the cycle infrastructure. It's why I started the thread in January 24 - yet I am the one accused of spreading misinformation.....amazing.....

Does anyone know what is wrong with it - it's a shame that such a great feature of the park is out of action for so long.

I am not 100% sure but I think it was a structural engineer's report - the ceiling in their front room collapsed and the council removed the tree in the pavement outside their house.

Of course you don't.....I am glad to see that in the month I was away nothing has changed.

Oh my, have some of us been here so long that we are seeing a second generation of baby shops opening - this clearly means the first generation of kids in "Nappy Valley" have grown and many parents moved to pastures new and there's a new influx of young families! 😉

@EDmummy101 is the tree causing issues now or is this pre-emptive? Our neighbours had a problem caused by a tree outside their property and the council did come to remove it but only after they had proved that it was the cause of the problem in their house.

I agree and I also think they need to have a wholesale review of the consultation process as it is manipulated by the council (in terms of the questions they ask) and open to manipulation from vested interest groups most of whom don't actually live in the area. To top it off of course when the council loses a consultation and they can say "well it's not a referendum" and that makes a complete mockery of the whole consultation process and the spirit in which they are run. Honestly, why bother with them at all? Council's like to pretend they are democratic and have local residents at heart but we see very little of that in practice - time after time we have seen Southwark manipulate every consultation they run to get the result they want. I can see why so many people are so sick and fed up with the way that politicians treat people (expect thohse who are directly benefiting who are happy to turn a blind eye because they are getting what they want) - you expect it from the Tories but everything Southwark Labour do is so diametrically opposed to their supposed beliefs and political ideology it's actually incredibly worrying and saddening because we should have been able to count on them to uphold the moral fibre of politics and rebuild trust.

Sorry Earl, what's your point? Surely anyone from East Dulwich or Forest Hill, and parts of Crystal Palace, would be categorised as Southwark and Lewisham residents when responding? I am saying there's a significant weight of evidence that the consultation was manipulated by people who were neither a Southwark or Lewisham resident - and the data supports that suggestion. The weight of non Southwark or Lewisham residents responding to the consultation swung it to "supports" the changes and thus gave the mandate to the council to roll them out.

I think Earl is being rude....

Well I think I have Earl - the fact that the highest number of supportive responses in the consultation (by a country mile) came from people who lived in neither Southwark or Lewisham does indeed suggest that something unusual was going on. If it is not the lobbying efforts of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to their membership perhaps you can share your conclusion as to how that happened? I mean it is a little odd is it not - I mean it's sitting there in black and white?

So @march46 do you have the consultation docs - if so please do share them as they have moved and are no longer where I orginally read them and I did not download them? @Earl Aelfheah you accused me of not doing any research when clearly I had - not at all sure how that is not a good faith debate.

Because it relies on police reports on accidents and only get added when the attached form is filled out - so it is only indicative of the accidents attended by police who then fill out the form, or accidents where people submit the attached form to the police. It was one of the challenges with the death of a woman in Wiltshire who was hit by a cyclist as the police refused to launch an accident investigation because they said, incorrectly and they have since changed their policy, that they would not investigate because "it did not involve a motor vehicle". It you get hit by a bike and have an injury (unless of course it is a death or a very serious injury) it is very unlikely the police will attend. So you cannot use that dataset as definitive proof of how many cycle vs pedestrian accidents are happening - which is exactly how you have been using it. This is why so many people, myself included, have been calling for proper data to monitor how much of a problem this has become. stats19.pdf

@Earl Aelfheah be nice - you have to per the forum rules. I think you owe me an apology because I very much did do my research - back in January 24 and I remember reading the council's document and it did say that the refuge was being removed to facilitate the advance cycle box/lane. The consultation pdf has been moved - has anyone got it? https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-phase-3-design/supporting_documents/Red Post Hill Junction Consultation Plan.pdf @march46 you seem to have a hotline to the council - do you have it?

No, it's the manipulation of the consultation process which is the concern - that is pretty clear from the title of the thread is it not? I am glad to see First Mate and I have no vested interest clouding our decision-making process when it comes to posts on this forum. Anyone else happy to play their hand....come of folks it's only fair......;-)