Earl Aelfheah

cool story bro

We had this problem. Went through insurance. Big mistake. My advice, patch up the cracks and don't worry about it.

Are you a 'resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'? Did you have a view on the proposed changes? I wonder how many people in ED might have had an opinion. Or those in Forest Hill, or Crystal Palace? Again - are you then saying that you agree with the changes, but not with the consultation?

You've not provided any evidence of 'manipulation'? And just to be clear, are you then saying that you agree with the changes, but not with the consultation about the changes which took place half a decade ago?

Well if you won't clarify you point, you do invite people to interpret your words as they are. Please don't accuse me of lying again. It's out of order and ironically, completely untrue.

Repeated pattern on this section. State something without evidence. Then demand others prove it wrong. It is not good faith debate.

So you're in favour in principle, but in practice you're not in favour of the pavement widening or the proposed new crossings? Why will you not clearly state your position, whilst also claiming that any attempt on the part of others to clarify it is 'lying', or 'misrepresentation'. Why so coy?

Actually googling stuff and reading the material before making a judgement is not dark magic. It's just rationality

@rockets - it relies on reported incidents. How else would you collect the data on collisions? This is also irrelevant to this thread. If there was any kind of injury it's likely it would be. It's also the case that many minor incidents involving motor vehicles go unreported. Again, irrelevant to this thread.

But object to my paraphrasing this as you not being in favour of widened pavements? Feels like dancing on the head of a pin to me. And are you in favour of the crossings, or do you have 'reservations' about that too?

Where I have quoted you, I have quoted you directly and in a 'quote' box. Where I have sought to understand your position, or paraphrased my understanding of your position, I have not used quotation marks. You have previously on this thread accused me of 'lying', which is ridiculous. My words are recorded for people to see. You may not like my characterisation, or you may disagree with my interpretation of your meaning, but I have always sought your clarification. So again, are you saying that you do approve of the proposed changes to pedestrian areas and the creation of additional crossings, or that you don't approve of them? Because I read your comments (the ones quoted) as suggesting that you were not in favour of them.

In response to: You said: And later: This strongly implies that you are not in favour, or at least don't see the point in widening pavements or increasing the number of crossings because of 'bikes'. Yes, I know it's a bit incoherent, but I can't really make out your point beyond that.. It's why I asked you to clarify it. No one is in favour of people cycling on pavements. No one thinks that people cannot cause harm to others when they collide with them on a bicycle. But to object to the creation of safer places to cross the road, or against the creation of more space for people to walk (in a busy areas with lots of bars and restaurants) implying it's about pedestrian safety is a bit rich. If you think that to do these things are 'anti car' then put it in the consultation.

No, I did a quick google search to check the facts before posting an opinion...unlike the person who started a thread to express their outrage without making any effort to understand even the basic details first. Rockets view on the changes at the time.... Apparently half a decade on the fact that speeding has significantly reduced is now a concern.

Rockets, please can you make even the slightest effort to check stuff before spreading misinformation across this section. Even just a quick google search?

They really should replace these online consultations, with targeted polling and focus groups (using properly representative samples).

So you don't want pavements wider, or street clutter removed because it could get used by bikes? Bizarre imo, but sure. What about additional crossings for pedestrians should they also be paused until... what? Bicycles are banned? Your obsession with what you wrongly perceive as the massive danger posed to others by bicycles seems to be a prospectus for no investments in either walking or cycling. So just more encouragement for people to drive everywhere for 'safety'? I suggest you work it out and put it in your response to the consultation, but personally the idea that improvements to pedestrian areas should be halted because 'bikes' is massively misguided.

How is it ‘skewed to motor vehicles’ exactly? And what’s your point here? You think there shouldn’t be improvements to pedestrian spaces, or additional crossings because ‘bikes’’? What exactly are you objecting to in the proposed changes to the gyratory?

*sigh* I’ve told you. The powerBI dashboard which I’ve shared more than once. It contains the data you said wasn’t collected (without looking for it) and says on the first page how it’s collected (which you’ve said we don’t know, despite my previously pointing you towards it). Are you really interested? I mean it’s very clear you’re already looking to try and undermine the data without making any effort to look at it first. …it’s also entirely irrelevant to the proposals on the gyratory.

You haven’t. I’m not talking about Crashmap.

If you mean to ask whether they consulted with different stakeholder groups. Yes they did. Maybe after you read the TMO you could look up the word ‘consultation’.

That road was an accident hotspot and one of the ten roads in the borough identified as having a particular problem with speeding. So 5 years ago, they introduced measures designed to slow speeding motorists, narrowing the road. This had the side benefit of also freeing up space for a segregated cycle lane. The cycle lane was not the point, but was an additional benefit. If you actually read the TMO, you would realise that your objection (half a decade on) to a successful intervention to reduce speeds and collisions in an accident hotspot, is based on your not understanding the purpose of the scheme. It worked in reducing speeds and accidents by the way. But I'm sure that's not important.

After you loudly claimed the data didn't exist without the remotest attempt to look for it, I linked you to a BI dashboard that gives detailed description of how the data is gathered. Why don't you look at it.

Interesting. I wonder what scheme they're referring to?

You did think that yes (although you'd apparently made no effort at all to check for yourself before making the assertion)... And then you were linked directly to the data you claimed wasn't collected. The intriguing thing is why you still think that data isn't collected having been spoon fed it.

🥱