Are PCN's being used as money-making exercises in London - the AA thinks so....

[first mate]

And, to be frank, many of us would disagree with Dulville on that last statement. 

[exdulwicher]

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

it's relentless....

Maybe look in the mirror Rockets. It's always you that starts these threads - a link to a headline, a tenuous link to Dulwich / Southwark and a "conclusion" that happens to match your exact opinions on the subject.

I'm willing to bet that if we did a posts by author count on the Transport board, your name would account for at least 1/3rd of the input. THAT is relentless...

53 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

I actually think Earl has done us all a public service here. For years Rockets pumped out factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and because of Earl's diligent work, he has been properly and comprehensively fact-checked. Long may it continue. 

This ^^ - Earl comes along and fact-checks you, you double down on it and drag out complexities and exhausting details - in this case stuff about exactly where your car wheel can cross a bus lane, but you've done it before with the exact positioning of a traffic counter on a road or the timing of roadworks for example.

Southwark's Conspiracy Department must really have their hands full dealing with all this! No wonder they need all the money from poor hard-working drivers, it's to pay the wages of the "where shall we put a traffic counter today?" team and the "where should we paint a bus lane to cause maximum distress to Rockets?" crew and the "no, wait a week until we start those roadworks to inconvenience as many people as possible" department... 😉 

Edited 18 hours ago by exdulwicher
spelling

[Sue]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

I actually think Earl has done us all a public service here. For years Rockets pumped out factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and because of Earl's diligent work, he has been properly and comprehensively fact-checked. Long may it continue. 

I agree with all that apart from the "long may it continue" bit 🤣

44 minutes ago, first mate said:

And, to be frank, many of us would disagree with Dulville on that last statement. 

"Many of us"?

How many?

And your evidence for that is ....?

[Rockets]

Ha ha....a few more of the usual suspect joining the pile-on and we'll have the full house!

The bottom line is some of us take a more pragmatic approach to analysing what is happening. Some of you will never accept any criticism of anything that you are ideologically aligned to - look we get it and understand it - it's difficult to criticise something that you adore but the cult-like obsession with defending any criticism shows how entrenched some are.

Look at this thread - the AA thinks that councils are using PCNs as money-making exercises and look how agitated some get in defending the councils over it. It's laughable and the fact some get so agitated probably shows that the AA were right to make the claim!

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Look at this thread - the AA thinks that councils are using PCNs as money-making exercises and look how agitated some get in defending the councils over it. It's laughable and the fact some get so agitated probably shows that the AA were right to make the claim!

From the first line in that article you linked to:

A record-high of nearly 10 million fines were issued to London drivers last year in what experts claim to be a “money-making exercise”.

What experts? Who are they? There's no indication there as to who these "experts" actually are, who they work for... Surely that fails the very first part of your transparency test?

In other threads, you're arguing that much more should be done to fine cyclists for these same offences, but when it comes to drivers, you're outraged at this apparent cash cow. Tad hypocritical don't you think?

42,000 fines in 23/24, 48,000 fines in 24/25 - as you care so much about safety on the roads, surely you should be outraged that there's that number of people breaking the rules? Or more to the point, that number of people being caught, it'll be a tiny fraction of those that commit the same offences and aren't caught.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha....a few more of the usual suspect joining the pile-on and we'll have the full house!

It's not a pile-on, don't be so melodramatic. The thing is, there's actually some useful, constructive and positive debate to be had here but you insist on turning everything into a conspiracy. It's like trying to "debate" with a Flat Earther. Every time you debunk their nonsense, they go further down the line of "you're must be in on it, you're a paid NASA shill, you're ideologically obsessed with the globe model..."

Same here, you've accused several people (including me I believe) of being paid council shills, we're ideologically obsessed with cycling, we're anti-car... And yet you never see that same aspect (from the other side of the coin) in yourself.

Although actually on a revived thread a little while ago I did find this (see below) and I thought: Rockets and I agree on something! I was going to add that you must prefer it because it's right on the lovely Dulwich Square and then thought that your blood pressure might not take such accusations!  😉

On 25/07/2021 at 19:23, Rockets said:

It always makes me marvel how people line-up like lemmings outside Gails in the village for overpriced bakery products and rude service yet around the corner sits Au Ciel which is far better in every respect.

[first mate]

But, equally, those who have expressed criticism or reservations about a number of local interventions have been called 'daft', 'petrolheads', likely supporters of the far right, of reform and similar, members of One Dulwich, and finally, it has been inferred some of us are outright liars and things we have witnessed cannot be true because they conflict with the views and preferred narrative of some on here. 

It may suit some of you to see the work of certain posters as a "public service" but I have to disagree. 

[march46]

 

 

Well said Dulville, I agree. Earl goes above and beyond to ensure the misinformation doesn’t go unchallenged. There are many who appreciate and recognise this takes a lot of time, thank you!

Edited 14 hours ago by march46

[first mate]

The 'misinformation' line makes it sound as though everything thing stated or inferred by the pro Southwark traffic management supporters on this forum, is without flaw and always accurate and true. Of course, not everyone agrees.

[Rockets]

24 minutes ago, first mate said:

Of course, not everyone agrees.

And that's when it gets complicated because some people, normally those with an ideological obsession over something cannot stand the fact that people dare challenge their particular view of the world and will often respond in an aggressive knee-jerk way (and seemingly name calling). There is a long list of posters who used to join the debate but have been hounded out by the relentless name-calling by the pro-active travel lobby. 

And we should remind ourselves that some of the very worst posters on this forum have purported to be supporters of LTNs (LTNBooHoo, LTNManatee, RaptorTruck etc).

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

What experts? Who are they? There's no indication there as to who these "experts" actually are, who they work for... Surely that fails the very first part of your transparency test?

Is that not the AA?

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

Same here, you've accused several people (including me I believe) of being paid council shills, we're ideologically obsessed with cycling, we're anti-car... And yet you never see that same aspect (from the other side of the coin) in yourself.

I think there are some on this forum (not you Ex) who are very closely aligned to the council or the active travel lobby...I mean someone went to a lot of trouble to get publically available information about the Dulwich Society redacted from a post I made. I mean, why would anyone do that? Even the person it concerned had posted their LCC Active Travel Campaigner award on their own Twitter feed....yet someone on here didn't want that to become common knowledge.

And @exdulwicher I love the fact we agree on pastry product preference! And that still holds after all these years! You see...we do all love each other really!

[malumbu]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And that's when it gets complicated because some people, normally those with an ideological obsession over something cannot stand the fact that people dare challenge their particular view of the world and will often respond in an aggressive knee-jerk way (and seemingly name calling). There is a long list of posters who used to join the debate but have been hounded out by the relentless name-calling by the pro-active travel lobby. 

 

Heavens.  This is exactly what you are doing

Referring to people like me as the usual suspects.

Saying people like me are ideologically obsessed and hound people out.

And then when you are questioned just come out with the same rhetoric again (and again and again and again).

I promise myself not to post on this thread and then you post this sort of dismissive nonsense.

It is difficult to be polite but I try......

 

[snowy]

A reminder that the AA was originally established to undermine law enforcement and help wealthy speeding drivers avoid being caught in speed traps - put in place to protect other road users from cars... but apparently not a pro car lobby group. 

[malumbu]

Wow, didn't know that

https://www.theaa.com/about-us/aa-history

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Saying people like me are ideologically obsessed and hound people out.

A number of posters have been hounded off the forum such is the toxicity aimed at them...I mean look at some of the names I have been called on this thread alone....makes you think doesn't it?

1 hour ago, snowy said:

A reminder that the AA was originally established to undermine law enforcement and help wealthy speeding drivers avoid being caught in speed traps - put in place to protect other road users from cars... but apparently not a pro car lobby group. 

They came a long way then didn't they to be referred to as the 4th emergency service for a long time! 😉

The point remains they are trying to draw attention to the use of PCNs as a money-making exercise. I presume you disagree with them and their expert assessment?

[Sue]

I can see my post fell on totally deaf ears then.

Hey ho. I tried.

I genuinely think it is a real shame that there are people - possibly a lot of people, but obviously I have no way of knowing - who won't post on this forum because of the toxicity of some of the threads, and by implication some of the posters.

There is a difference between having a discussion based  on proven  facts (or  based on opinion clearly stated as opinion), and a ding dong argument based on unproven "facts" which one of the protagonists would like to believe are true (or knows/suspects they are not true but cites them anyway because they "back up" his side of the argument).

And appears to think that this is amusing.

It isn't.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it brings this forum into disrepute.

I also think that some posters seem quite unaware that they are accusing  people of things that they themselves are doing. Or of being what they themselves are.

It's called projection, if memory serves.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sue

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

I think there are some on this forum (not you Ex) who are very closely aligned to the council or the active travel lobby

Except you have no evidence for this. Calling people you disagree with lobbyists, or saying that they work for the council is just a way of trying to delegitimise what they may say, without engaging with it. It is not good faith debate.

And it's ironic, that for all your dismissal of people's opinions as being those of 'lobbyists' with an agenda, you're quoting the AA as though they're an independent source - they are an actual lobby group that campaigns on behalf of motorists.

5 hours ago, first mate said:

The 'misinformation' line

You can have legitimate differences of opinion, or put different interpretations on things, but that's different to stating things that are just false. For example, saying that a street is now more dangerous for pedestrians, when pedestrian collisions and injuries have fallen, or that pollution has increased, when it has actually fallen - those things are demonstrably untrue. That is misinformation. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Arghh - he drew me back in 😉

[first mate]

Earl, you inferred I was making stuff up, and did so repeatedly, when I posted about my experiences with cyclists at Dulwich Square and other local areas ( having reminded you many times that I am also a cyclist). Your main rationale was that these things could not have taken place because it was not your experience. That is hardly a fact or evidence -based approach, nor is it debating in 'good faith'; it is also offensive.

I agree with Rockets that a number of posters who have disagreed with you and the 'pro' posters about local traffic management interventions, seem to have been hounded off threads. Malumbu often reminds us he is some sort of expert in traffic/ transport and more recently that he drives round checking on the efficacy of interventions within the borough ' as a community service'; certain other posters seem to access Southwark documents on traffic management the rest of us cannot find or access. It has felt like there have been deliberate attempts to stifle debate, one way being to consistently repeat that those who disagree are liars, peddlers of fake news or members of a shadowy far right cabal using criticism of local LTNs and CPZ as a route to topple the council and bring in Reform (and we are accused of being conspiratorial).

We can all agree to disagree, that is fine, and I completely accept how boring and off putting these sort of 'ding dong' threads must seem to most, but I cannot agree at all to the notion that Earl is some kind of purer than the driven snow community hero, they have done their fair share of spinning, obfuscating and deflecting. Rockets, like all of us, is far from perfect, but to suggest all he ever does is make stuff up and create false narratives is just nonsense.

Edited 7 hours ago by first mate

[snowy]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

They came a long way then didn't they to be referred to as the 4th emergency service for a long time! 😉

 

😀that's their own 1980s marketing slogan... i don't think they attend Cobra meetings. 

[Rockets]

42 minutes ago, first mate said:

Rockets, like all of us, is far from perfect, but to suggest all he ever does is make stuff up and create false narratives is just nonsense.

I am definitely not perfect but the things people accuse me of on here is ridiculous - if AI did a run of the accusations made against me by some other posters and summarised it, it would make scary reading - "lair", "outed someone", "childish", "embarrassing", "right-wing petrolhead Reform supporter", and so the list goes on. Good job I have a thick skin! 

 

10 minutes ago, snowy said:

😀that's their own 1980s marketing slogan... i don't think they attend Cobra meetings. 

Yes I did realise that! 😉

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

 

They came a long way then didn't they to be referred to as the 4th emergency service for a long time! 😉

 

The AA is a commercial organisation (and the RAC) providing services - they would come up with slogans, that helps get business.

Founded in 1905, it provides vehicle insurance, driving lessons, breakdown cover, loans, motoring advice, road maps and other services. The association demutualised in 1999, to become a private limited company, and from 2014 a public limited company (PLC). In 2002 the AA Motoring Trust was created to continue its public interest and road safety activities.

Of particular interest going back to its origins:

In 1910, in a legal test case (Betts vs. Stevens) involving an AA patrolman and a potentially speeding motorist, the Chief Justice, Lord Alverston, ruled that where a patrolman signals to a speeding driver to slow down and thereby avoid a speed trap, then they would have committed the offence of 'obstructing an officer in the course of his duty' under the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885.[9][10] The organisation then introduced a coded warning system, used until the 1960s, whereby an AA patrolman would salute the driver of a passing car which showed a visible AA Badge unless there was a speed trap nearby, on the understanding that their officers could not be prosecuted for failing to salute.[11] The AA Handbook stated that "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that when a patrol fails to salute, the member should stop and ask the reason why, as it is certain that the patrol has something of importance to communicate."

So its origins can hardly be said to supporting road safety.

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Malumbu often reminds us he is some sort of expert in traffic/ transport and more recently that he drives round checking on the efficacy of interventions within the borough ' as a community service

 

I am a transport expert. I also enjoy making tongue in cheek comments.  

2 hours ago, snowy said:

😀that's their own 1980s marketing slogan... i don't think they attend Cobra meetings. 

I've just agreed with your first point,  But as I am a transport professional I know it is COBR.  Cobra is just the way the media present it.  I had some dealings with Sir Edmund in the 00s when he was at the RAC foundation.  Sadly he has gone all "poor old motorist" populist at the moment, The stuff on EVs and the congestion charge is really unhelpful.

[HeadNun]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am definitely not perfect but the things people accuse me of on here is ridiculous - if AI did a run of the accusations made against me by some other posters and summarised it, it would make scary reading - "lair", "outed someone", "childish", "embarrassing", "right-wing petrolhead Reform supporter", and so the list goes on. Good job I have a thick skin! 

 

Yes I did realise that! 😉

And don't forget 'racist', though that was deleted and time was served.