Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah as usual, there is an alternative version of events - I posed questions about the methodology linked to the report and resulting exlcusive media coverage provided in the Guardian - you took umbrage to me asking questions without having read a full copy of the report (due to it being behind a paywall) - you claimed to have a copy of said report - I asked you to see if you could answer the questions on the basis of you having a copy of said report - you refused, I am sure this led some to suspect you may not have a copy of the report as you claimed. The irony of your above claim of course is that this thread is about a report analysing the LTNs over a period beyond 5 years - perhaps you think that the OP should not have shared it in that case - you cant have it both ways, choosing when to selectively discuss things and then claiming too much time has elapsed when someone else does. It looks to many that there are some here who refuse to discuss anything that doesn't sit within their particular ideological purview or when they see something that doesn't put LTNs into anything other than a shining light! Suddenly then it is...move along folks, nothing to see here. It's ever so slightly hypocritical.

Sorry @Earl Aelfheah is that aimed at me, someone else or are you talking to yourself? 😉

Unfortunately, the world is shifting more to the right and so even now centre-left politics of the Blair era would likely struggle in this climate. It's terrible but world politics are starting to mould our country politics. A shift further left won't work.

It's going to be an interesting few months leading up to May... ..massive discontent with the Labour government ...potential civil-war in Southwark Labour ...local councillors who have been upsetting many residents with their policies and, in some cases, attitude ...left-wing voters shifting to the Greens or others But of course...the Lib Dems have been pro-LTN and Tories are, well, Tories. At the end of the day how long have Labour run the local wards..too long probsbly...I do wonder if there is appetite for some change but is there a viable alternative. Clearly Southwark will always be led by Labour but us residents need more opposition to hold council leadership accountable. The position Labour have held at Southwark HQ is not good for the residents.

No, because the issues of that election were bigger than local issues...Labour made sure of it. I doubt they can pull that card in May.... If the Tories and LibDems had any sense one of them would withdraw and try to galvanise the vote against Labour.

This new party might do nothing more than serve Reform victory in the next election - there is no mood for a far-left party (as 2019 aptly demonstrated) and taking votes from Labour could be a nightmare for the whole country. But Corbyn has only cared about himself and his ideology - once a backbencher, always a backbencher.

Spot on, Southwark Council went out of their way to avoid mentioning anything to do with LTNs and made it everything about a vote for Labour sent a message to Boris and the Tories.

No, because of what has been happening in our local area. I dont think they are doing it because of any perceived weakness but more that busy mums with a full car of kids rushing to get to school and on with their day present an opportunity for what is, essentially, a distraction scam. PCSOs have been advising people to intervene to help anyone targeted by them as they suddenly make a miraculous recovery when challenged by people other than the driver they have targeted.

But it was not signalling majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN was it? And that was the context in which you were using it. In fact, the consultation materially showed that there was majority opposition to the LTN. So you were wrong. I am afraid you are the one who is deflecting. We can all see what you are doing and the more you try to argue about it the clearer your tactics become. Look at the discussion on this thread. I pose questions based on media reports and the abstract of Goodman's report. You spin that to say how can I be critical if I haven't read the report. You claim to have a copy of the report and I ask you whether my questions are answered by the report. You refuse to try to answer my original questions. You then attack me again for not having read the report. Do you see the pattern here?

Then there is this of course... On 13/06/2025 at 11:59, Rockets said: I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"? To which Earl responded.... On Dulwich LTN - Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative. Doh!

The pattern of the plethora of incidents of this happening locally. It's part of the criminals' MO.

Almost exclusively women, normally around schools during drop and pick times. If any man approaches they tend to speed off. They're cowards.

Someone has tried to kneecap his political career.

Oh yes you did - its a bit early for pantomime season. Honestly, the pack hunting from the usual suspects is so predictable. I have been more than clear what I was questioning yet some, who claim to have read the report, cannot help clarify and then try to weaponise the very fast I dared ask a question. Is it any wonder people dislike so much about the active travel lobby.

Yes @Earl Aelfheah glad you're finally admitting your "majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN" was demonstrably untrue

@Earl Aelfheah enlightening and quite entertaining now too.... Feel free to share the answers to my questions from the paper you have a copy of whenever you're ready! 😉 In all seriousness I am going to be the grown-up and call time on this particular strand of the discussion as it has all become a little odd and slightly concerning.

Honestly @Earl Aelfheah the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper but carry on, it's very enlightening.

Of course else you would not have been arguing with me about it for the last 10 posts. Honestly @Earl Aelfheah so predictable, so transparent....my goodness me. Enjoy reading the paper ;-).

Not necessarily...there has been a big increase in these types of scam around Townley, Dovercourt etc and all of the double yellows were extended by the council recently and no-one parks there now.

Where do I ever claim I had? I have been very clear from where my questions came from. You seem to be trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist. You seem more interested in trying to have a go at me for not reading it than actually sharing details from a paper you caim you have read. Are we to presume then that you don't actually have a copy of the paper after all? I have answered that already and you are clearly using this to deflect....come on, share with us the info from the paper.....

I just explained what my questions were in relation to and I didn't have to have a full copy of it to pose those questions. So if you have the report, do you subscribe to the BMJ then, maybe try to answer the questions, I am kind of surprised you haven't yet, they are quite simple questions (if you have a copy of the report) and you could have saved us a lot of time? Maybe enlighten us or people may think you dont actually have a copy after all....;-) You very clearly tried to claim majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN on the strategic intent question in the consultation didn't you? When in the consultation there was overwhelming opposition to the LTN with the majority asking for it to be returned to its original state. You also told us that accountability for councillors lay at the ballot box - or words to that effect.

So you read the full paper then? Did you buy it? This was why I was asking the questions I did because from the two articles Peter Walker I was interested in the differences between the numbers of LTNs surveyed and the fact CrashMap for Dulwich Village (which is typical of modern LTNs) showed numbers that didn't tally with the big numbers shared in the report so I wondered whether the increase in surveyed LTNs was a bit of statistical and methodology jiggery pokery to get a big headline - would something like that come up in a "peer review"? Seeing as you have the report can you tell us whether they address the large number of LTNs surveyed and whether they were all post-Covid implementations? I know you are very data led and love nothing more than to hide behind STATS19 (which we know do not show the whole picture) and it is interesting that a few months ago Simon Monk was telling everyone the stats on floating bus stops (no doubt done by an activist research group) showed they were safe. Yet a few months later the government has banned any others being installed. Makes you think doesn't it? I mean what do you think is behind that, surely the government has access to the stats. I have previously shared data on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village as a whole but the PCSO was the one who said crime was increasing due to the road closures. Go speak to them about it but it is clear what they said. They also talked about the types of crime that were being enabled by the closures. I am sure you know people who live in the LTN area so maybe ask them about the problems I am sure they will validate what the PCSO said about the types of crime that are very visibly, to those who live in the area, increasing. P.S. the other menace in the area of speeding bikes down Calton some of the local residents have taken to screaming at cyclists to slow down - people are getting fed up with it. Tell me what you think you said in relation to both claims I attributed to you. In fairness plenty of unanswered questions about how the council and elements of the Dulwich Society Travel and Environment subcommittee have behaved too.....;-) You forgot to mention that bit.

Looks like change is starting slowly..the government seems to be switching on to some of the problems. BBC News - Pause on new 'floating' bus stops welcomed by campaigners - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20x7lk83vo

You haven't answered the question @exdulwicher...nice bridging....have you ever done media training? 😉 For balance and impartiality I think what you meant to say was... We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned, supposedly impartial, researchers who have been caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in their local shop, funded peer-reviewed activist research published in journals and award winning cycle-lobbyist journalists who write selectively plucked and focused pieces celebrating the success of LTNs as "exclusives " which, according to some are not allowed to be published as "exclusives". There go, a balanced assessment.....;-)

@DulvilleRes to be fair it was @Earl Aelfheah should said the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable.... You're just annoyed because PCSOs are telling people that crime is increasing due to the road closures and that there isn't 55% of majority support for the DV LTN. P.S. I did share with you my thoughts on the Goodman research and you provided nothing in the way of an explanation. Come on @exdulwicher if you do work in this area you know perfectly well that STATS19 is skewed to the most serious road accidents and that there is no accurate way, currently, of measuring lone cycle or cycle vs pedestrian injuries. The real issue here is that years after the measures went in people are still talking about them, how they came to be here and their impact. Some of you hate that and really wish people would just forget about it and live with the status quo. There is a real nastiness to the tone and behaviour of many of the pro posters on here which is very telling and why so many people want to fight against these measures. So keep going folks you're doing your cause the world of good! 😉