Rockets

To be fair @snowy Sadiq did this time round because between the Tory government and Labour government he suddenly decided he needed to ask for 50% less money....https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o

You dont have to be a Lobbyist to be a lobbyist! Would you not agree that many of your posts are lobbying for the benefits of active travel/LTNs and that you take strong positions against anyone who does not subscribe to your particular view on the matter?

I would definitely categorise you as an active travel lobbyist (in the same way I have no doubt you categorise me as anti-LTN) given your propensity for defending and promoting anything and everything the council says on the matter and the way you aggressively, and relentlessly, argue with anyone who dares suggest a different perspective. To be fair you do also claim to subscribe to a paid-for service to receive Anna Goodman reports on LTNs which does suggest more than a casual interest in the matter! 😉

Oh another click bait headline? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-cycling-tsar-will-norman-idiots-motorists-red-light-jumping-b1238425.html

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists...I dont need my big boy pants to post that...goodness me! I think that is pretty obvious - lets also ground this conversation on the nonsense accounts set-up like LTNBooHoo, RaptorTruckMan etc which were just set-up (I suspect probsbly by posters with other aliases) to troll anyone who dares disagree with the active travel propaganda posted by some. ....as I was saying...

@Earl Aelfheah perhaps everyone should get badges....;-) I am happy to proclaim that I am not an active travel lobbyist!

But it did not show majority support for the DV LTN did it? That's how you were trying to use it and you got caught and it is you who are trying to weedle your way out of it - unsuccessfully I hasten to add. Do you acknowledge then that there was majority opposition to the DV LTN in the consultation report? @DulvilleRes you clearly think I have something to do with One Dulwich. For the umpteenth time I don't. If you think I do, by all means, say so but this innuendo is becoming very boring. I suggest you have nothing more to go on than a hunch but your hunch is wrong. I believe One Dulwich is doing a great job stopping folks from sweeping a load of stuff under the carpet....five years on and all that! Bravo to them and if it annoys a few of the usual suspects that this is happening then even more bravo to OneDulwich! It does and it is up to other road users to respect this and the whole point of this thread is in relation to the increasing number of cyclists who seem not to know or respect that fact.

What, a bit like your majority support for DV LTNs false assertion where you clearly hadn't read the whole report...;-)

Yes indeed, will he still sit in cabinet under her? Or does she get to do a reshuffle?

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah there are lots of people who post solely positive articles on cycling...yet you don't seem critical of them doing so....why might that be? I mean, have you ever posted something critical of cycling or anything other than something in glowing support of LTNs? Be thankful some like me are on here posting articles for the sale of balance! Forums tend to be better when they aren't just vehicles of propaganda! 😉 But i do also think it is interesting that you automatically jump to assessing articles as negative and use it as some sort of crux to attack me with. The article was highlighting measures being considered in what is widely accepted as the leading cycling country and I dont think was particularly negative in tone. The issue, and the flagging as it being "negative", is seemingly based on the sensitivity amongst many in the pro-active travel community in having to address anything that might suggest there are issues that might need addressing. It is this knee-jerk reaction that leads many to believe that there are some who just dont want to have to deal or discuss any of the issues people are raising - that the head-in-the-sand approach is best.

And you're still refusing to help me answer the questions....that's not very helpful is it? Oh well...

Nope. I just read a lot, it helps expand the mind! 😉

Is he still the one signing these off given the leadership issues?

@Earl Aelfheah other opinions may differ from yours....and, do you know what, you may not be right all of the time....;-) I still think given Anna Goodman's challenges with objectivity when faced with an anti-LTN poster in a local shop you can call her objectivity into doubt when co-authoring papers on LTNs...surely we can agree on that much at least....;-) Can you PM me a copy perhaps....;-) Of course you're not. And I didn't say it is wrong I asked a question about the methodology...but we all know you know that...why do I think you know there has been some jiggery pockery at play....if not surely you could just help answer the question? Are you avoiding providing the answer perhaps?

But does the report answer the questions I initially posed - Just start doing the math, look at the areas where LTNs have been deployed (I did also notice that the first Peter Walker/ Goodman research article in 2021 did analysis of 72 LTNs - installed during Covid - and the most recent looked at 113 LTNs so are we presuming that since 2021 another 40+ LTNs were put in or have the researchers expanded to LTNs installed before Covid and, as such what do they define as an LTN?).