first mate

Not really clear how preserving wildlife and a festival of this size go together? On a completely different note, the entrance to PR has loads of broken glass stuck into soil. Rubbish also left strewn around in the Japanese summer house. What is it with people?

I think it is shocking and I am pretty certain everyone else who has read it does too. However, yes, it feels disrespectful to comment on something so horrendous but with no information at all about what happened. I guess there may also be concerns about respecting privacy of relatives and potential legal issues.

But talking about use of rhetorical devices and generalisations, your post is wall to wall, extremely loose and arguably misleading paraphrasing in an apparent attempt to create an impression and affect perceptions about an individual poster. You are not Rendel Harris returned are you? ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > It was very myopic - the usual blinkered > pro-LTN > > narrative > > Yes I understand that taking you at your word and > reading what your wrote is "blinkered". Possibly > being against holocaust trivialisation is > blinkered too. Hard to tell when you won't be > clear. But that's kind of your way: you slip > around between points latching hard on to one, > dropping it quietly when it becomes untenable and > latching hard on to another. Always trying to keep > whoever you're arguing with on the move. > > It's not a bad rhetorical trick to be fair to you. > So if all you're interested in is winning some > debate in the eyes of whoever you believe is > watching then go ahead. Everyone's got to have a > hobby. I do hope though that you understand that > reality isn't affected by rhetorical techniques, > so if you're aiming to actually find a working > solution then such tricks hinder rather than > help. > > I strongly suspect you do not care. > > > that many of us have been dissecting and > > depositioning for a very long time on here. > > No: you've been voicing your strongly held > opinions. It's overly generous to call your > arguments a "dissection". > > > By all means feel free to join the debate but > > you claim you have been lurking for a while so > you > > will be well aware that many on the anti- side > of > > the debate have provided their own suggestions > for > > solutions > > I've read the "solutions". They all fall into the > categories I listed. Most of them are "do nothing > and hope", with a side order of "do something > known to not work and hope", with a sprinkling of > "data is wrong, academics are bad and science > doesn't work", just to add flavour. > > > and gone to great lengths to answer many > > of the questions you have posed. Maybe check > back > > in the thread. > > I have and still reached this conclusion. You are > not nearly as rational or convincing as you > believe you are. Ultimately you're leaning on the > righteousness of your cause and so there are > basically two choices for you: > 1. People agree > 2. People disagree and are therefore blinkered > > > > Out of interest, and in the interests of > balance, > > is there anything from the pro-LTN that you > think > > is absurd? > > Are you talking actions or arguments? I haven't > seen any particularly absurd arguments. > > I suspect you're trying to take my post about > arguments, subtly reframe it to be about something > else, then complain that I haven't addressed > whatever is in your head, for you to then be able > to declare how just awful all these pro LTN people > are.

Agree with all this.

In fairness, I think a number of us are guilty as charged 😀

We can certainly agree it was a less than helpful comment. I don't know if the individual supports LTNs, I'd imagine they do. The comment was pre-pandemic but not so long ago. If memory serves, it was made by a Southwark cycling rep around the time of the last CPZ consultation. Can't know for sure of course, but given their role I did wonder if it reflected a wider view within SC. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions > from > > a > > > cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked > > > locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get > to > > > work, you should really consider moving out > of > > the > > > area! > > > > Cool story > > Just not sure what your point is. Apparently > someone said something stupid a long time ago. > They support LTNs. So?? Are you inviting us to > make a general attribution error?

Does that mean you condone it or you think I am making it up?

One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from a cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to work, you should really consider moving out of the area!

Quite, in a pandemic, when most people are working from home, not using cars and staying local.

Yes, a huge deal was made about that as a driver for CPZ, people driving and parking just to get a latte and so on. On the other hand, when M&S was proposed and there were concerns about cars parking up to do shopping etc.. we were told that most people did their shopping using public transport, walking or using bicycles and there would be no issue with cars out of the area. Amazing how these two opposing narratives were juggled by the Council and planning, almost at the same time! Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are many people who visit outside ED, > especially for shops like Roullier White & Mrs > Robinson. It was the whole argument when CPZ was > being introduced.

Will the bus stop remain? It doesn't seem to feature in the drawings. The plans also indicate that a route for foul/ sewage water is at this time not known. Perhaps this is entirely normal for plans at this stage but one wonders if it might entail large scale roadworks at some point?

Well, it does make sense. Having blocked off part of MG to traffic the last thing you want is nasty, polluting school coaches damaging children's lungs at the school entrance. Better to send them onto a main road and increase pollution there and it will also teach those drivers commuting through to work a jolly good lesson...how dare they pollute the local area with their fumes and damage children's lungs, don't they know there's a school there.

Seems to cut both ways. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll accept > any data that does not show what you want it to. > You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in > it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all > the research on active travel. I could produce a > glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars and > the air will be clear and traffic a thing of the > past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One > Dulwich already have some.

I will bookmark now. Thanks John L that makes sense. The annoying thing is how completely the results of a search term can be completely redirected and changed.

This has been happening for a long time. The way I have got around it at times is to search east dulwich forum plus a poster's name. The general pattern is that for a while I am able to access the forum on a simple name search and then suddenly the same name search will only bring up this facebook page. I must admit I thought it was a genuine ED FB page. I don't understand how FB can suddenly 'take over' a search term like that?

In the interests of complete transparency shouldn't the council let us know which independent analyst they have hired?

Surely the window will have to be extended enough to accommodate new responses, once the data is made available?

Rah, on the first I believe it has already been clarified that Heartblock meant 25 peer reviewed papers on LTNs, the way he phrased it initially was shorthand...that is how it came over to me anyway. On the employment issue he was making a point about impartiality which still holds true given Aldred's position within the cycle lobby. I don't get why you are chasing this down, it doesn't really add to the debate or the strength of your stance, in my view.

Rahrahrah, you do now seem to be playing with perceptions; This is what Heartblock actually said, below. He did not deny Rachel Aldred's output, he questioned its direct relevance to the subject of LTNs. Okay the point about being paid was slightly off base, but I get the point about her close association with cycling lobby groups. But the stronger point is the first and I think you are misrepresenting the point Heartblock was making. You seemed to be using the fact that RA has 25 peer reviewed papers to suggest that her views and research on LTNs were therefore somehow above scrutiny and beyond question. If that was not your intention then fair enough, but it read that way to me. Earlier in the thread Heartblock responded to rahrahrah saying: "...she doesn?t have 25 peer reviewed papers on the subject of LTNs, in the same way I may have a paper about subject A or subject B or C. Therefore if I wanted to talk about A, I would only mention A. Also if I was paid by a pharmaceutical company to prove that a drug worked, my research would be compromised. Rachel is not neutral and aspects of her research are based on modelling rather than actual data, it does need to be reviewed with that in mind. I?m not dismissing the research, but as a reviewer I would critically review it on that basis".

I hope Heartblock stays too. I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and doubt very many others will either.

I've posted this before but seems relevant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

Heartblock, I would also ask you not to go, not yet. This debate needs informed, credible voices and specifically those with a strong grounding in reading and interpreting data.

A revolting example of Trumpian spin and councillor narcissism.

That is the central dilemma, those who support this version of LTNs are also in favour of HTNs (high traffic neighbourhoods) whatever way they try to twist it round, that is the reality

>But this shifts the problem of parents parking elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we must accept that inconvenienced parents may need to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop off further away from the school, but those living closer to the school who for other reasons may also be massively inconvenienced at not being able to use a car must get on with it? Is this essentially what you mean? > I think that there needs to be an acceptance that > stopping parents dropping off by car is > impractical but putting in place more proactive > measures to mitigate the effects could be a real > benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting > the overall model for the schools.