West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah said: It’s simply not true that no one uses it.

I think it is used but I have rarely seen it used, this weekend was the first time in ages I saw one cyclist out early Sunday morning. 

The largest number of cyclists I have ever seen over there was in a photo for a piece about hill cycling in London and this was on the steepest part of the hill, from the Horniman to Kirkdale, where there is no cycle lane. I would assume, but cannot be sure, they continued to the cycle lane itself.
 

Do you know of reliable data indicating frequency of use and in what number?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

38 minutes ago, first mate said:

Do you know of reliable data indicating frequency of use and in what number?

Does it matter? There is room to accommodate a cycle lane, people expressed support for a cycle lane, and it's used by (we can agree at least, some) people. So what purpose would it possibly serve to remove it, unless people are actually arguing that they would like to reverse a successful and popular road safety scheme (which would involve widening the carriage way and so might necessitate it's removal)? 

Again, though, what I'm particularly interested in, is who @Rockets wants to see ‘held accountable’ for supposed antidemocratic activity? Which councillors, or council staff, and which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how, and on what grounds? 

Edited Tuesday at 08:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

It is true, I have NEVER, EVER SEEN ANYONE USE IT. FACT. 

So you're saying the bike lane was implemented as a traffic calming measure, right, sure. 

There are other methods of reducing speed rather than implementing an unused cycle lane. You seem to switch arguments as and when it suits you, how about sticking to the point. 

What an utterly dumb thing to say "So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? 

What is the nature of this vengeance you’re after? "

Edited Tuesday at 09:42 by jazzer

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, jazzer said:

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill

I'm not disputing that you've never seen anyone use it. I'm disputing that no one uses it.

16 minutes ago, jazzer said:

So you're saying the bike lane was implemented as a traffic calming measure, right, sure. 

Nope. I'm saying the road was narrowed to slow traffic. The inclusion of a bike lane was just a design choice, with the option opened up as a result of the traffic calming. The bike lane is not a traffic calming measure itself.

16 minutes ago, jazzer said:

What an utterly dumb thing to say "So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? 

It's a question in response to this:

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ripping out the square or increasing speeds limits would not make me happy. Holding those within the council, and their cheerleaders and supporters, to account for the un-democratic way they have forced measures... would make me, and a lot of others very happy.

If one is calling for individuals to be 'held to account' for apparently 'un-democratic' behaviour, then it's reasonable to ask who exactly and in what way? What does this mean exactly. And who are these 'cheerleaders and supporters' that must be punished? 

Edited Tuesday at 09:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, though, what I'm particularly interested in, is who @Rockets wants to see ‘held accountable’ for supposed antidemocratic activity? Which councillors, or council staff, and which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how, and on what grounds? 

Those responsible for it. Throughout this whole sorry process one thing has been consistent; the council's lack of accountability to their constituents. They have been happy to ignore, mislead and demonise anyone who dared suggest what they were doing was undemocratic and poorly executed. If any of us behaved the way in our work lives we would be disciplined - in some parts of the council, and amongst their cheerleaders and fan-bois, it seems to be considered a badge of honour. @Earl Aelfheah they managed to convince you that there was majority support for the measures by using the spurious and (deliberately) misleading 55% support stat and burying the actual result of the consultation. You either fell for that or decided to ignore the actual result - I wonder how many more people were hoodwinked in the same way. 

I am sure Lambeth council thought that they could get away with such behaviour with the West Dulwich LTN but they got caught (not only did the judge find it unlawful but also had real issues in the ways the council were manipulating the process, the consultation and the narrative around it) - but will there be any accountability? Unlikely. The left-wing elements of Labour don't do accountability - it's always someone else's fault - look at Corbyn, he's still banging on about a media conspiracy against him costing him the election in 2019.

When I hear people saying....."it's years ago move on"....is a clear sign people know there are things to hide.

[Earl Aelfheah]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Those responsible for it. Throughout this whole sorry process one thing has been consistent; the council's lack of accountability to their constituents.

We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box. The councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. But seeing as you don't consider that adequate, what is it you're asking to happen to 'the council' and their 'cheerleaders and supporters'. And again, it would also be good to know who exactly you're talking about?

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

If any of us behaved the way in our work lives we would be disciplined

What is the 'discipline' you would like applied to 'councillors, fan-bois, cheerleaders and supporters'?

Edited Tuesday at 10:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box. But seeing as you don't consider that adequate, what is it you're asking to happen to 'the council' (again, would be good to be who you're talking about).

@Earl Aelfheah what a load of nonsense - councillors and other elected representatives don't have free reign to behave as they please between elections without any accountability..... Are you trying to convince us that the accountability for the Lambeth councillors involved in the West Dulwich debacle should be the ballot box at the next election? 

Edited Tuesday at 10:29 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

28 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah what a load of nonsense - councillors and other elected representatives don't have free reign to behave as they please between elections without any accountability..... Are you trying to convince us that the accountability for the Lambeth councillors involved in the West Dulwich debacle should be the ballot box at the next election? 

Are you (again) trying to insinuate that Southwark have acted unlawfully?

You've spent half a decade wanging on about a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, and traffic calming on Sydenham Hill that has successfully reduced the number of collisions. After all that, all you say you want is some form of punishment for those who implemented these schemes, and for those who are supportive of them. Is it too much to ask what that punishment looks like, and who you want it applied to? Which councillors and which ‘supporters’?

Edited Tuesday at 10:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Does it matter? There is room to accommodate a cycle lane, people expressed support for a cycle lane, and it's used by (we can agree at least, some) people. So what purpose would it possibly serve to remove it, unless people are actually arguing that they would like to reverse a successful and popular road safety scheme (which would involve widening the carriage way and so might necessitate it's removal)? 

 

I think it possibly does matter. Some good data on cycle usage would help settle this debate.  At the very least it would be helpful to know if the intervention was justified, because that might influence thinking on other potentially similar interventions.

If the cycle lanes are currently little used by cyclists, it makes a nonsense of the notion that it was necessary to narrow the road and install cycle lanes to protect cyclists from speeding cars;  unless you are arguing that cyclists used the road much more, before the cycle lane was installed?. Also imposition of 20mph predated the cycle lane by some way. Overall, it is not a coherent rationale.

 

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box. The councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. But seeing as you don't consider that adequate, what is it you're asking to happen to 'the council' and their 'cheerleaders and supporters'. And again, it would also be good to know who exactly you're talking about?

According to this article in today's Times, Rezina Chowdhury is being urged to resign over misleading the high court 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/lambeth-rezina-chowdhury-resign-ltn-6s9mn5jpx

It's behind a firewall but a website archive can get past that 😀

Maybe thats what should occur to councillors who are found to have manipulated information and responses rather than wait for a local election.

After all if you manipulate the truth at work and get found out then you are normally disciplined or sacked so the same principle should apply to all walks of life  

[Rockets]

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're not mentioning the "majority support" for the Dulwich LTNs anymore....thank goodness...we have some progress! 😉

Southwark councillors agree to a code of conduct when they take office - the 7 principles of that are listed below.

SELFLESSNESS

INTEGRITY

OBJECTIVITY

ACCOUNTABILITY

OPENNESS

HONESTY

LEADERSHIP 

Clearly some of this has been tested by some behaviour from councillors during this process but, of course, whether anything will ever be done to ensure there is accountability is another matter - a culture of accountability needs to start at the top. Southwark doesn't have the best track record of holding their councillors accountable when they have stepped out of line.

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 minutes ago, first mate said:

If the cycle lanes are currently little used by cyclists, it makes a nonsense of the notion that it was necessary to narrow the road and install cycle lanes to protect cyclists from speeding cars

The road wasn't narrowed to accommodate a cycle lane. How many times does this have to be explained. The road was narrowed to slow traffic. The cycle lane was simply a design choice, enabled by the narrowing of the road. The choices were effectively to narrow the road and not have a bike lane, or to narrow it and include a bike lane. The majority supported the former. Removing it, would simply mean the loss of a bike lane, not the expansion of the carriageway (unless that's what you're arguing for - effectively the removal of a popular and successful traffic calming scheme).

13 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

According to this article in today's Times, Rezina Chowdhury is being urged to resign over misleading the high court 

Again, you're implying that because one individual (Rezine Chowdhury) may have mislead the high court, that this has some relevance to a scheme, or schemes, in Southwark, 5 years earlier. How exactly?

If people act unlawfully, then of course there is recourse through the courts. But if you simply don't like a legitimate decision made by an elected representative, then the recourse is through the ballot box.

Despite the constant insinuation, no one has provided any evidence that Southwark has acted unlawfully.

Ignorance of the purpose of consultation, and our system of local governance, does not amount to 'proof' of wrong doing.

@Rockets enough of the dissembling. You called for some form of punishment for those who (half a decade ago) implemented a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, and introduced traffic calming on Sydenham Hill, as well as for their 'supporters'. What does this entail, and for which councillors and ‘supporters’ would you like to see these consequences?

If you don’t want to reverse the schemes and you won’t say what ‘punishment’ you want to see levied against which ‘councillors, supporters or cheerleaders’. The again, what do you want exactly?

Edited Tuesday at 12:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

So why is the cycle lane even there then?

And where are your figures to show how well used (not) the cycle lane is (not) 

Edited Tuesday at 13:38 by jazzer

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, you're implying that because one individual (Rezine Chowdhury) may have mislead the high court, that this has some relevance to a scheme, or schemes, in Southwark, 5 years earlier. How exactly?

Blimey 

You did take a huge leap there. Careful when you land...

This thread is about the LTN she mislead the high court over. 

I didn't imply it had any relevance to the square of shame or Southwark, but if the cap fits... 

However, I did imply that if councillors act in a misleading way, then we should expect them to be removed rather than wait for a local election. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You posted it quoting my response to a comment suggesting councillors, involved with the Dulwich Village LTN, and their 'supporters and cheerleaders' should be punished, and my asking what that might look like. If just an update on the West Dulwich LTN, I'm not sure why you quoted me; it seemed fairly clearly to imply some relevance to (perhaps some similar 'treatment' for) Dulwich Councillors

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box. The councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. But seeing as you don't consider that adequate, what is it you're asking to happen to 'the council' and their 'cheerleaders and supporters'. And again, it would also be good to know who exactly you're talking about?

According to this article in today's Times, Rezina Chowdhury is being urged to resign over misleading the high court 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/lambeth-rezina-chowdhury-resign-ltn-6s9mn5jpx

It's behind a firewall but a website archive can get past that 😀

Maybe thats what should occur to councillors who are found to have manipulated information and responses rather than wait for a local election.

After all if you manipulate the truth at work and get found out then you are normally disciplined or sacked so the same principle should apply to all walks of life  

Literally no one is saying that it's OK not to follow a lawful process. But the attempt to suggest that the Lambeth case has some relevance to other schemes with a wink and a nod, but zero evidence, is not reasonable. 

I'm still waiting to hear what this ‘punishment’ is he wants to see levied against ‘councillors, supporters or cheerleaders’.

Edited Tuesday at 14:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

52 minutes ago, jazzer said:

 

So why is the cycle lane even there then?

And where are your figures to show how well used (not) the cycle lane is (not) 

Earl Aelfheah can you answer the question?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@jazzer if you just read up the thread, you'll see I already explained this. It's there because when the council consulted on whether or not to include a bike lane as part of the scheme to slow traffic on Sydenham Hill by narrowing the carriage way and imposing a 20mph speed limit, it was widely supported. The thing you seem to be struggling with, is that the carriageway wasn't narrowed to accommodate a bike lane. It was narrowed to slow traffic and this enabled the option of creating a bike lane (or not).

Edited Tuesday at 14:35 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Ahh 

I was simply bringing something relevant in response to your "We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box." To point out other ways of holding them accountable 😀

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Ahh 

I was simply bringing something relevant in response to your "We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box." To point out other ways of holding them accountable 😀

Fair enough. As you quoted more than just that part, it wasn't obvious. Of course there are other ways to hold people accountable for breaking the law, as I've already said:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If people act unlawfully, then of course there is recourse through the courts. But if you simply don't like a legitimate decision made by an elected representative, then the recourse is through the ballot box.

Edited Tuesday at 14:39 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

proof' of wrong doing.

@Rockets enough of the dissembling. You called for some form of punishment for those who (half a decade ago) implemented a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, and introduced traffic calming on Sydenham Hill, as well as for their 'supporters'.

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

Yes, so what censure are you calling for, for which councillors, and for which of their 'supporters and cheerleaders'? Are you going to elaborate?

[Rockets]

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 if you just read up the thread, you'll see I already explained this. It's there because when the council consulted on whether or not to include a bike lane as part of the scheme to slow traffic on Sydenham Hill by narrowing the carriage way and imposing a 20mph speed limit, it was widely supported.

At some point dont you have to assess 1) whether there is demand for any type of infrastructure and 2) if you install it assess whether that investment has been well spent.  We keep hearing...build it and they will come but there seems little analysis of whether that is the case. Again, is there any accountability/analysis of ROI for the investment of tax payers money by our elected officials?

[snowy]

15 hours ago, jazzer said:

Absolute poppy cock. 

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, Never have I ever seen, not even one solitary cyclist use it. I think ripping out the that cycle lane would get huge support as would ripping out "Dulwich Sq" 

I used it today. I use it regularly and see other people regularly using it. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

You actually claimed that:

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Throughout this whole sorry process one thing has been consistent; the council's lack of accountability to their constituents.

As pointed out the councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. You however, want them to undergo some sort of censure, alongside their 'supporters and cheerleaders' apparently. Is it not reasonable to ask which councillors, which of their supporters, and what nature of censure you're calling for?

Edited Tuesday at 14:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

But as its been posted before the traffic manager order included the options appraisal and costs of adding a cycle lane to the traffic calming scheme.