Earl Aelfheah

I'm not subscribed to a paid-for service to 'receive Anna Goodman' reports. I'm subscribed to the BMJ. I actually have a general subscription which give me access to a number of academic journals. This is nonsense. I have criticised the council many times. This is just another example of your binary mindset. You can agree with the council on some things and not others. It's not a football match. One can use their critical faculties to come to judgements on individual matters (I know, it's a radical concept). These are not remotely the same things. Saying someone is a lobbyist, suggests that they are part of and (by implication) acting on behalf of an organisation. It implies a hidden agenda. Saying someone has an opinion that they've openly expressed is hardly the same thing. I would ask you what organisation you are accusing me of 'lobbying' on behalf of and where your evidence for this is (again, I know the idea of evidencing your statements, or even attempting too is 'radical', but see if you can try). Nope. Very happy to listen to other opinions, but not to indulge an individual who is clearly acting in bad faith.

I mean yes. If you read the article, he's actually talking about bad road behaviour generally. He also says the “antagonism” between cyclists and motorists portrayed on social media was “not representative of real life”. I agree with him. Unfortunately as flagged by Penguin, and amply demonstrated by you Rocks, some people do see it as a football match between two 'sides' / a culture war and are lost down a social media rabbit hole. Hence the fact that you seem to be fed (and then unhelpfully post on this website), every single article or opinion piece with a headline that is negative in tone about people using bicycles.

Here we go. You didn't say they 'act like active travel lobbyists'. You said they were active travel lobbyists. Well I'm asking you to spell out exactly who on this forum you're accusing of being an active travel lobbyist? What organisation do they work for and where is your evidence?

‘Perhaps’ 🙄. It’s nothing to do with LCC being consulted alongside a number of other stakeholder groups. The insinuation (it’s always innuendo and weasel words, never straightforward), as you well know, is that commentators on this forum (basically anyone with a different opinion), are part of a co-ordinated lobbying organisation. It’s a really transparent attempt to dismiss people’s views as not their own, but as part of some undeclared, organised campaign group. I’m fed up of these types of tactics. Engage with the substance. @Rockets if you want to accuse posters on here of something, be a big boy and spell it out, so that they may respond. Don't be so cowardly. I'm so sick of these rhetorical tactics, constant unevidenced claims, doubling down on false statements when challenged, deflections, insinuations etc. There is just no substance to any of it. It's all just an endless 5 year grievance.

Who are these active travel lobbyists, and what is the lobbying activity you’re suggesting they’ve taken part in?

This is really unhelpful. Who are these 'active travel lobbyists'? Is it just anyone with a different opinion to you? Should everyone start referring to 'inactive travel lobbyists'? Why not just engage with substance of what people say?

The highway code puts it like this:

Both you and Rockets keep demanding that I illegally distribute propriety material for free on this forum. It's a paid for article as has been stated repeatedly. 👇 I'm not giving you any more help. Do the work, formulate your thoughts, and then share your view.

I didn't say this though. You can keep doubling down, but it's a straight forward lie. The quote you have produced (having scoured the forum, desperately trying to wiggle out of simply admitting an error - heaven forbid that you should ever do that), was: "Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative". This is not a false assertion. It is a fact. You've also quoted me as saying 'the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable'. Also not a quote from me / completely untrue. And why did you make up these quotes / try to misrepresent things I said on completely different threads? - to deflect from legitimate challenges as to how you’d concluded some research was 'propaganda' and 'statistical jiggery pokery', without having read it. It's not about differences in opinion. These are bad faith tactics used repeatedly - say something that has no basis, and when questioned deflect / change the conversation, often with other misleading statements or personal attacks. It's just 'flooding the zone'. It’’s embarrassing.

Not sure I've posted random opinion pieces on 'cycling'. I do point to data and research in support of my positions. That's because I believe in reading available evidence before forming an opinion (rather than forming an opinion and then trying to take apart opposing evidence to prove a prejudice). I don't live in an echo chamber where I'm being fed 'culture war' stories concerning 'bikes vs cars', which I strongly suspect some are, and as Penguin implied. Most of what you post is unevidenced opinions, or just objectively false assertions. For example, claims that LTNS increase pollution, or increase road danger.

I didn't say the policy itself was necessarily negative. I pointed out that Rockets seems to dig out every article related to bicycles with a slightly negative tone. The fact that you say it should 'serve as a wake up call', kind of makes my point. It is very clear to me that (as inferred by Penguin), some people are deep in a social media rabbit hole and being served up content that is driving some of the behaviours we see across this thread. ...being those where they treat the simple act of travelling by bicycle as some sort of culture war issue.

Right. It 'undermines my position' to have read the paper before commenting. But it doesn't undermine ones position to critique it without having read it? Are you OK? It's a paid for article / not mine to share for free. I've already responded in detail to Penguins baseless speculation about the methodology (again, he clearly hasn't read it). I'm sure Admin would quickly remove it if I did illegally distribute propriety content on the forum. If you want it for free, go and steal a copy from your local research library. I'm not helping you.

You don’t even read the scientific papers you ‘critique’ 🤣 The circumstances are those where you get your ‘news’ from Facebook

After already dismissing it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ and suggesting it should be ‘filed accordingly’. A bit late to pretend you care about an objective assessment of the methodology. You’re fooling absolutely nobody.

Jazzer trying to pretend like his compadre’s ‘contributions’ aren’t transparently, objectively, 🐎 💩 Dismissing a peer reviewed academic paper as ‘propaganda’ and ‘statistical jiggery pokery’ without having read it. 🤣 Caught making up quotes (posting the evidence himself 🙄) in a desperate attempt to change the subject after being called out. …and then *back to earnest face* hey, I’m just asking questions, I really have an open mind …but I still haven’t read the paper so someone who has is going to have to help me try and find how it might be flawed. 😬🤣 Give us a break.

@Rockets If you want to critique the paper seriously, you’re going to have to read it. If you just want to say it’s wrong and then ask me to help you try and prove your prejudice, I’m not interested.

You don't like the conclusions and so are attempting to critique the methodology without having read it? I'm loath to engage with criticism based on nothing but prejudice, but if it helps (it definitely won't): ...they included all road links (sections of road between two junctions) in London. Across the years 2012–2024, some road links became inside an LTN or became part of an LTN boundary road, while others did not and remained in a control group. The analysis estimated the before-versus-after change in injury numbers after the implementation of each LTN, using the control group to adjust for background changes in injury numbers over time. They observed significant decreases in injuries within the LTNS and no commensurate increase outside of them. They also looked at roads which had been part of an LTN, but where it had been removed. In total, 331 injuries, including 44 'killed or seriously injured' events, were observed on roads in a former LTN that had been removed. They estimate that 116 fewer injuries, including 16 fewer KSIs, would have been expected to occur if the removed LTNs had instead been retained. In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

Not how search engines work, but social media, yes. It would partially explain the rabbit hole. As Sue points out, it seems wholly impractical and I am very confident that it won't happen.

Do you have some sort of alert set for any story or article concerning bicycles that is slightly negative in tone, or do you just spend a lot of time searching the internet for them?

No it’s not. It’s about one individual repeatedly diverting any discussion about roads or transport, regardless of what it is, back to a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago. By all means discuss it, but let the rest of us discuss other things, without constantly being forced to relitigate a half a decade old grievance that's not changing. We've already heard all the talking points, many of which are simply untrue (for example baseless claims about increased danger and air pollution, conspiracies around shadowy lobbies etc). You literally responded to a post pointing out some interesting research with: And followed it up with a claim that it was: ...without even reading it. So don't claim you are just asking honest questions. And of course, when this irrational and unhelpful 'contribution' was questioned, you immediately tried to deflect, falsely quoting me more than once whilst also accusing others of It's the usual bad faith contribution, sprinkled with deflection and dishonesty. The thread was about some interesting and very credible research and you've just diverted yet another thread so that you can rail against shadowy lobbies and bore on about a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago.

I don't know. Who took a thread on the latest research showing a clear and significant drop in accidents and injuries following the implementation of LTNs, rubbished it without even reading it, and then having embarrassed themselves, quickly deflected the conversation onto whether or not there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN (via some false quotes)? It's almost as though this is a repeated pattern, by someone who makes it impossible to discuss roads and transport without using it as an opportunity to return to their monomaniacal obsession over a 5 year old road filter.

For goods under £200, shoplifting is treated as a summary offense and is often dealt with through fines or community service. Changes were made to the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42492488 Shoplifting is a massive problem right now. It's at the highest levels ever recorded according to the OfS.

Excited about this. Hope they’re the ones to finally make that site work.

Wearing a balaclava and hood in 30 degree heat should certainly be grounds for police to stop and search / question you. If it’s not grounds for suspicion I don’t know what is.

Wow. What a sad response. Maybe get that Lordship Pain treated - might help you find your sense of humour.