Earl Aelfheah

Again, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all. Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme (31 for, just 3 against) For you to suggest that 26 people are the majority opinion expressed and then claim that there is spin going on is wild. Maybe not, but when you say that every Mayor of London, the Heads of GLC, London County Council "hate all drivers" it doesn't sounds a calm and rationale view to hold. @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 In response to this: You said: ....and You then started this thread. So I think it's entirely fair to say that you accepted first mates statement that the cycles lane was installed to control driving speeds. And it is very clear that you think there has been a conspiracy, when you talk about manipulation of consultation data by 'cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed'. You've provided zero evidence of this. This is nonsense. I'm questioning why a scheme you supported at the time, you suddenly now object to 5 years later. That is quite odd. I have laid out exactly why I think you've done this - it's based on a misunderstanding of the objectives of the scheme, leading to a belief you have uncovered a conspiracy and then your misinterpreting a table to fit the narrative. To liken a well supported and successful road safety scheme to the Post Office scandal is beyond bizarre.

OK. perhaps it's fairer to simply ask why he is exercised about a change made 5 years ago, and which he previously supported, at this time. I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct, as immediately pointed out by other posters on that thread. The changes to Sydenham Hill were to address a problem with speeding, narrowing the road, to slow traffic. The space that was to be created by this, opened up the option of including a bike lane, but this was a design choice. This is clear in the TMO – a fact was pointed out more than once. An alternative would have been to narrow the road and not create a bike lane. The public consultation showed strong support for including a bike lane in the design. For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy. He then declared that he would rapidly create a thread to discuss this conspiracy, and set about looking for ‘evidence’ to support the conclusion already reached. From what I can tell, the ‘evidence’ uncovered comes in two forms: An organisation that represents some London cyclists were consulted on designs which included a cycle lane A mis-interpretation of a table, which split results into residents of Sydenham Hill (and immediate roads off of it), categorised by which side of the road the responses come from (the Southwark side or the Lewisham side), and other responses from further afield / the wider area. The objection appears to be that support was stronger in the second group, which have been taken as proving widespread interference in a public consultation by lobby groups / activists / malign actors. Linked to this, is the fact that LCC encouraged any London cyclists with an interest in the creation of a bike lane as part of the design, respond to a public consultation. In all of this, there are two key points that both of you seem blind to: support for the scheme existed across both groups, and 5 years later we can actually assess the success of the scheme in slowing vehicles and reducing collisions; it has worked.

Yes, that's right, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all. Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme. You yourself supported the scheme at the time. The changes were designed to address speeding in what was an accident hotspot, and have since proved successful in that aim. So again why, 5 years on, how have you decided you’re angry about it?

Southwark = 32 supported (or supported with changes), 23 did not support. Lewisham = 15 supported, 3 did not In total 47 supported, 26 did not. So again, of those living locally who responded to the consultation, the majority expressed support. You also expressed support at the time. But five years later you're angry about it. How have you got there? Also, I read the breakdown differently to you. I assumed that the Southwark and Lewisham numbers refer to those who are a resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road (as the road has residents who fall on both sides of the borough line). The others 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road', are people who have responded from (for example) East Dulwich, Forest Hill, Crystal Palace etc. - which was the point I was making above. But it's kind of irrelevant, because any way you cut it, there was majority support.

The thing to be aware of, is once you know for sure that it's subsidence, you have to report it to your insurance company. So decide how bad the issue is and whether that's a ball you want to start rolling. If it's just a few cracks, then I would just get then fixed up and not worry too much.

I think the sign says that some of the wood is rotten and needs replacing.

So you did support the changes? And presumably still do? And you accept that of those living locally who responded to the consultation, the majority expressed support? But 5 years on you’ve decided you’re angry about it?

I don't know what you're getting at. This was half a decade ago. The scheme had majority support from locals, including yourself. Are you suggesting that the views of local residents should have been ignored? That you are now no longer supportive of the changes that you once described as sensible? I don't understand what you think the issue is?

Don't' google which companies are US based, as google itself is! Perhaps Qwant it instead 😜

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.