Rockets

I don't need to because anyone, who has been paying attention over the last few years, would know that I have criticised the vandals, on both sides of the argument, plenty in the past. Not going to try to find something you haven't criticised because I feel no need to stoop to your level. And, to be honest, you seem to spend your whole time on here aggresively attacking anyone who dares to oppose your view of the world, so finding something that you don't criticise is probably going to be a bit of an effort - but maybe that's part of the modus operandi for a self-confessed (bikeless) member of the all powerful cycle lobby mafia illuminati. 😉

Another Peter Walker exclusive....exclusively quoting his cohorts and peers from the cycle lobby - I wonder who gave him the exclusive! 😉 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-risks-creating-rat-runs-say-campaigners

A swarm...how nice.... "We did win"...are you a Councillor? I know Southwark have had problems with councillors haranguing constituents by setting up anonymous social media accounts before (Cllr Pollack) so maybe you're another! 😉 Funny you posted the article from the Guardian as I saw some social threads saying how come the councils spend so much on repairing vandalised LTN infrastructure when other vandalised infrastructure (like in parks) stands unrepaired for years. Someone mentioned that the council are only spending money made by the LTNs to repair/update/refresh them with that money. Also love the Guardian submitted an FOI to get that info.....

As I was saying Ex- don't go all Mr Chicken (as Mr Chicken just went)....what a fantastic advert he is for the active travel lobby...."we are coming for your car etc"...in one post he highlights everything wrong with many in the active travel lobby and why people are, rightly, questioning how things have been allowed to get this far. From Anna Goodman tearing down posters to some of the overly angry posts on here it's clear the active travel lobby have some real problem elements who won't ever be able to have a balanced discussion...its very much their way of the highway...sorry I mean cycleway...;-) Indeed I am honoured, my work here is now done! 😉

We have seen this sort of behaviour from our councillors when organisations try to publish findings that go against the council narrative and really shows the challenges encountered when you pay for and commission research if the findings aren't completely endorsing the outcomes and conclusions you wanted from the research. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/19/khan-tried-silence-scientists-questioned-ulez-claims/ Khan tried to ‘silence’ scientists who questioned Ulez claims, emails show Correspondence shows deputy ‘really disappointed’ that Imperial College publicised findings questioning effectiveness of scheme By Sarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR 19 August 2023 • 9:00pm Sadiq Khan is expanding the Ulez scheme to the whole of London Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose. In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez. Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution”. Advertisement London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an “alarmingly cosy relationship” between the Mayor’s office and the scientists it was funding, as well as a desire to “silence scientists who question the effectiveness of Khan’s policies”. Prof Kelly’s colleagues said they stood by their research “100 per cent”, but The Telegraph understands that the fallout has had a chilling effect, leaving them unwilling to publish further work on the subject. The study from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2021, found that the introduction of Ulez in 2019 cut nitrogen dioxide by less than three per cent and had insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter. Peter Fortune, the Conservative London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley, two of the boroughs challenging the Ulez expansion, said: “It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspired to silence legitimate research because it would damage the Mayor’s reputation and credibility. “Sadiq Khan has claimed he is just following the science, yet he has been using scientific advisors to protect his own interests. Science relies on open, transparent debate.” Imperial’s Environmental Research Group has been paid at least £802,958 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, including a payment of £45,958 for a report on the “future health benefits of mayoral air quality policies” which has been widely cited by the Mayor despite not being peer reviewed. Cllr Colin Smith, the leader of Bromley Council said: “When academics are paid for their research, it quite reasonably leads to questions being asked about the outcomes sought by those commissioning the work. “Indeed, as long ago as last autumn we directly challenged Imperial as to their methodology and the conclusions of some of their research ourselves, and the revelation of these emails now serves to seriously heighten those concerns.” Emails released under Freedom of Information requests show that Ms Rodrigues wrote to Prof Kelly on Nov 16 2021, complaining that Sky News, The Times and The Mail were running a “misleading” Ulez study that had been press released by Imperial College. Ms Rodrigues thanked Prof Kelly’s team for trying to stop Imperial’s press office from releasing the research and said that she was “deeply concerned” about the damage the study was doing to credibility of the Mayor’s office and Ulez. She added: “Is there anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight? I would really appreciate any support.” Prof Kelly replied, saying he was “totally dismayed” and was “pursuing options internally to offset this”. He said he would be “very happy to provide the Greater London Authority with support required as you move to mitigate the damage”. Prof Kelly sent a statement to Ms Rodrigues to check, which initially said actions by the Mayor were “collectively providing a major benefit to the city”. She replied, crossing out the word “collectively” and adding that the Mayor’s schemes “have dramatically reduced air pollution in London”. Cllr Paul Osborn, the leader of Harrow Council, which is resisting the Ulez expansion, said: “These dodgy emails raise important questions about the scientific basis for extending the Ulez. I have long believed that this expansion will have a very limited impact on air pollution but comes at a massive cost to the poorest and most vulnerable motorists.” The emails also show that, on Feb 14 this year, the Greater London Authority (GLA) asked Prof Kelly to complain about a Telegraph article reporting on the uncertainty of air pollution death figures widely cited by Mr Khan, based on Prof Kelly’s research. The GLA offered to set up a “friendly interview” for him with “very supportive” David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham. At the time, Prof Kelly warned that “Imperial’s press office is not keen for us to put a direct contradiction to the Telegraph article”, but said that “as always, I’m happy to fight back”. He also asked the Mayor’s office to provide him with “a form of words” with which he could challenge the article. Cllr Baroness O’Neill of Bexley added: “These findings confirm everything we knew, in that the data used to build the case for extending Ulez was flawed. Extending Ulez has always been more about the Mayor of London’s drive for income generation than improving air quality for Bexley residents.” On April 17 , Prof Kelly admitted on the Evening Standard’s The Leader podcast that his research, paid for by the Mayor, would give Mr Khan “useful ammunition” to promote his Ulez expansion. On June 6 , Prof Kelly wrote to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, alleging that politicians were “not believing the science” on air pollution. Six of the signatories were part of the Imperial team, but they did not disclose that they were being funded by the Mayor’s office. A spokesman for Mr Khan said: “It is right – and standard practice across government – that we commission experts to carry out research to inform the work we do. “Frank Kelly and the Environmental Research Group at Imperial are some of the world-leading academic institutions looking at air quality. It is normal and proper to work with these experts to ensure our policies are as effective as possible at dealing with issues such as the high number of deaths – up to 4,000 a year – linked to toxic air in London every year. “The Ulez analysis from the engineering department at Imperial only paints a partial picture, not accounting for the full lifetime impact of the scheme and only focusing on its immediate impact around its launch. It is commonplace for academic experts to disagree with how other academic studies are interpreted, as was the case here.” The Telegraph has approached Imperial College for comment. © Telegraph Media Group Limited 2023

Political downfalls are always predicated by lying, deceit and taking the electorate for idiots....its just then a case of whether you can convince enough of the idiots to vote for you! 😉 Ex- you're starting to go all Mr Chicken on us, please don't!

Because when the argument is so biased, blinkered, sensationally engorged and so ludicrously skewed to help justify the council's agenda as those infographics are they deserve ridicule and calling out for what they are.....

Ha ha...the clip art vibe is so strong in this one! I can't wait for the too many bike lanes can cause problems for all road users version too! Or the one on floating bus stops causing problems for all road users too. Or shared cycle and pedestrian space.. And so the list goes on....

The reference I can find says: We will encourage people to switch to less polluting cars with lower parking fees for zero emissions and smaller vehicles across the whole borough. The phrasing of that suggests lowering existing parking fees and If that is supposed to be where we are supposed to have deciphered that CPZs are coming then wow......the deception intent is very real and it is laughable that people are defending that. When challenged it is interesting the council has not pointed to the manifesto but some research they did years ago to claim they have a mandate for CPZs - they know they are on dodgy groumd. That should speak volumes and this is exactly the lack of robustness that the judge in the ULEZ case was very critical of. Whilst they try to hide their intent the Tories have been dropping leaflets through Dulwich doors trying to focus people's attention onto it and create an Achilles Heal for Labour under the title "Our council needs to respect residents" and I very much expect to see something similar from the Lib Dems.

Ha ha...your pictures are brilliant! Honestly, the fact someone actually spent time to do that...hilarious....be careful because by your own measure what should the council charge if you use a cycle lane.....? Also, how much should I be charged every time I walk to Lordship Lane? Not a bicycle in sight but a couple of horse-drawn vehicles using the road...;-)

Mr Chicken you're starting to make yourself look a bit like a male chicken with all this nonsensical diatribe comparing imposing CPZs on people with mentioning bin collections.

I am not sure Mr Chicken knows the point they are trying to make on rubbish collection - unless he knows that the council plan to start charging people more for that now too....perhaps he has inside knowledge of "all the council's plans for charging for things not mentioned/accidentally omitted in their manifesto"...maybe because Dulwich residents eat more over-priced artisan products from local organic suppliers than other Southwark residents then they need to put a "justice tax" on that now too!

Well that's a bit of a challenge isn't it because their manifesto (as you have shown) is so loosely worded and lacking any specific detail it's difficult to determine what they are actually trying to achieve and how. The lack of any reference to CPZs means in their manifesto probably suggests that that idea must have suddenly come to them after the election so, like an untethered main sail, they seem flap around in the breeze and are a bit rudderless when it comes to specific ideas!! 😉

Are you advocating we rewind to Roman times or the end of the 19th century? Motorised vehicles, along with the steam train, revolutionised the way we lived our lives and the development (and spread) of our cities and towns - are you suggesting we undo all of that? In fact, if it were not for the train (primarily) and the car there wouldn't be a Dulwich as we know it today.

Mr Chicken - are you expecting CPZs to mean thousands of Dulwich resident jettison cars, thereby reducing congestion? If you are you really need to stop drinking the council Kool-Aid...;-) Can you also enlighten us as to how CPZs reduce through-traffic? Still waiting to find out if you found the reference of the borough-wide CPZ in the Labour manifesto.....

Thank you for acknowledging my legendary status.....;-) I must have missed your response on where the council mentions borough-wide CPZs in their manifesto - have you found it yet? The closest that manifesto gets to improvement in public transport is a promise to work with TFL to upgrade local stations....that'll help the local PTAL scores no-end....

Which brings us back to the whole point of this part of the discussion which is you'll always find people who will attack data that doesn't suit their narrative but when the authors of said research are 1) a person who was responsible for developing the LTN lobbying efforts for the LCC and 2) a person who pulls down posters that don't agree with their view of the world in relation to the very thing they are "independently assessing" then it puts the whole research on a very weak footing from the beginning and gives those against it huge amounts of ammunition. Those commissioning the research probably should have considered point 1 before engaging with UoW, they either didn't do their due-diligence or thought no-one would ever care - both of which are foolhardy to say the least.

Thanks for posting that Mr Chicken - I have shared it with everyone so they can see for themselves. Firstly, can you tell me where it mentions borough wide CPZs - maybe you were able to decipher that from the manifesto - perhaps as well as your skills as an engineer you have mastered mind-reading too!? 😉 Maybe omitting CPZs was an oversight on the part of the council - to be fair to them there have been quite a lot of oversights in relation to active travel proposals and execution over the last few years? Also, notice point 35 - two things to note: Firstly it says "work with communities". How quickly that turned into "we will tell you what we are doing and you will have no say in whether we do it or not". The current CPZ consultation is not working with communities it's telling the communities what the council is going to do whether they like it or not. Secondly, note the "Prioritising areas with high health inequalities and low car ownership first". That changed quickly as well didn't it as they are actually targeting the areas with the highest car ownership and are very vocal in why they are doing that because of "justice" apparently......?

I don't know but you're taking a very cynical position and jumping to an assumption from my post that is, clearly, very wrong.

Earl - you are right but can you show me where any local councillor/Southwark Labour mentioned the CPZs/LTNs in their manifesto - they seemed to go out of their way to not mention them? How robust is your representative democracy argument when councillors are not clear on what people are voting for? Or is that just politics? Is it not surprising that so soon after winning the local elections the council are imposing something that impacts every single person in the affected wards yet this was not mentioned at all? Do you not think something so impactful should have been declared? Why do you think they did not mention it - the answer to this question is the reason you should be concerned.

Errmmmm Mr Chicken.......does the tweet I linked before not address one of those points on past-week cycling.....take a look....

Hmmmmmm......Mr Chicken that one seems firmly back in your court now...we are waiting to see whether you have a return.... (No doubt some distraction technique incoming) And look how Waltham Forest is being spun by a Councillor there in the New Statesman in response to the focus on then right now.

...says the person who does nothing but ask questions but never ever provides any answers....sigh....are you sure you aren't LTN Manatee or Boohoo under a different name? 😉 I like to draw conclusions when I have heard from the person who presented it to us (and someone I respect because they work in the industry). I am not asking you because you are an engineer and clearly can't answer the question so maybe instead of throwing pointless responses into the thread to try and derail the conversation let the person I asked the question to answer it and we can go from there....of course, when we ask an engineering question feel free to jump in.

Ex- is this table from one of the links you shared saying that when they took those 12 interventions and put them to experts in the field this is how they assessed the potential to reduce car use in Lund? Do I take it the experts were applying local conditions and factors into the equation when making their assessment?

Mr Chicken - your responses make me think you don't actually ever want to discuss the topic in hand - you seem to be here just to distract and prevaricate. It seems now the Lounge Police can no longer patrol the area they have moved to a new tactic.....try to distract and derail discussions by throwing in nonsense. Heartblock is right - it's a load of greenwashing that does very little to make a positive change, propagated and propped-up by a nepotistic system of lobbyists, researchers and media all of whom have strong ties to the cycle lobby. Bikes are clearly one part of the solution but not the only solution - a mistake those aforementioned groups need to realise.