Earl Aelfheah

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.

🥱

These proposals make is safer for people when travelling by bike, (arguably) quicker for people when travelling by bus, give more space to those on foot and make it easier to cross the road. They make very little difference to drivers. Seem sensible.

What is it you think is untrue in the above? The improvement in air quality is a fact. The report makes clear that these improvements have been accelerated by ULEZ. What are you talking about with 'legal reviews'? You think there is something illegal about a summary press release, linked to a detailed report? I think you're just looking for ways to cast doubt on the success of ULEZ using your usual tactics of innuendo and conspiracy - because fundamentally it's been successful, and even you are not brazen enough to say it hasn't been outright.

Good grief. Well I look forward to reading these ‘revelations’ in your ‘exposé’ thread now 🤣

Hmm.

Think you've posted this on the wrong thread

@first mate - Where are the proposals for additional parking spaces on Lordship Lane please?

For what possible reason do you want to start a thread to discuss a consultation that took place half a decade ago?

I don't agree it's misleading. It's exactly what I would expect from a public relations / press office - short and punchy (lacking nuance), and spun from the most positive angle. It is not untrue however and it is accompanied with a lot of detail. And fundamentally it is a very positive picture.

A good concept, or an effective intervention?

I mean you could deflect. But why not answer the question. What are your views on ULEZ.

Ah, Ok I see what you're saying. I hadn't realised the council were proposing additional parking on Lordship Lane. Is this right? I haven't seen this - do you have any further info.

It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. I've seen plenty of people using that bike lane, but as already stated the bike lane wasn't the point. The point was that it was one of top 10 worst roads in the borough for speeding.

This makes no sense. You think that people are driving to Lordship lane but shunning spaces on the Lane in favour of the surrounding streets?

I was responding to this. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make". But if you want to lead with the claim that a CPZ will destroy the high street be my guest.

Who would that be. Not you, of course. I don't think the press release is misleading. You don't seem to understand press releases, or external relation departments. They've literally published a full report with it, with lot's of detail. It is absolutely clear from the data that it's had a positive impact on air quality. Honestly, I do wish you would be a bit braver. It's pretty clear you're opposed to it.

Fair enough. I'm surprised as you've often said you're concerned with congestion, pollution, and with traffic slowing the buses on lordship lane. Seems slightly at odds with wanting to encourage people to drive to the shops. I'm surprised those living on Melbourne grove and surrounding streets want to encourage shoppers to use those roads for parking, but up to them ultimately.