Rockets

And Ex- one of the reasons there is little point me doing the analysis of the data is that I have skin in the game, I have a publicly stated position on my views on what I would be assessing and reviewing....which takes us back to why Aldred should be nowhere near the "independent" evaluation - she has a well documented stated position on the very thing she is being paid to review. That's called a vested interest - surely even you can acknowledge that?

Good point well made! And in those circumstances if you are a vegan, a meat lover or a Tory you’d probably be overjoyed with the results and see no need for further scrutiny of the process or the people running it….. Hurrah, they say, we have the results we were looking for and this validates our personal viewpoint….how dare they question the independence of the process……I will now place my head back into the sand....;-)

Ex- you forgot to accuse me of being a right-wing, covid denier!!! ;-) Let me clarify something for you: Rachel Aldred was not just a trustee of LCC but also the chair of their policy forum - so she had direct input on LCC policies and lobbying efforts that LCC conducted - that was anything but an oversight role. And don't get me started on Chris Boardman - he runs a company that makes bikes and has been accused of favouring bikes in his role as Active Travel Commissioner - imagine the uproar if someone from a car manufacturer was put in charge as Roads Commissioner.....;-) At the end of the day Rachel Aldred is a cycling lobbyist and has spent her career lobbying for cycling which doesn't make her independent - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Makes you think doesn't it...but let's be honest people seem to develop a bit of blind spot when something they want and support gets questioned and that's what all of the pro-LTN lobby are doing - turning a blind eye because it suits their agenda. There's more than enough evidence to show that data, reports and output are fundamentally flawed and being manipulated - if you don't care - good for you - just don't expect any sympathy when it happens to something you do care about. The issue remains that there are people who care and are concerned about what is happening and are trying to voice their opinions but have been ignored and depositioned since the outset. The latest attempt to quell any opposition is to accuse people of being right-wing, Covid deniers etc...seemingly the go-to place when people have exhausted every other means of silencing opinions they don't like to hear. And Malumbu - you may think that my argument is spurious but at least I have an argument - you're displaying some distinctly troll-like tendencies! Have you ever answered a question anyone has asked you on the forum? If you're here to debate then go ahead if not maybe the lounge is more your natural hunting ground - maybe time to revisit the self-imposed Lounge quarantine! ;-)

Interesting use of words by Will Norman in one of his celebratory tweets: Firstly he is retweeting what looks like a sponsored byline article by a pollution monitoring company called Vortex and his headline data is from claims made by that company about monitoring done by one of its sister companies for Lewisham council The use of the word cut is important as it implies the journeys are no longer made but when you read the text itself it paints a different picture: Think about the reduction in traffic volume; it’s extraordinary. Our sister company Videalert provided Lewisham Council with intelligent CCTV technology to control vehicles entering the zone. Any offences committed were conducted in a post-implementation analysis. After analysing data on traffic patterns outside individual schools, they found that 96,000 fewer car trips were taken outside of just one school in a year and reduced 862,500 vehicle movements. So suggesting they were cut implies the journeys are no longer made but actually the piece was stating that, because they had closed the road 96,000 fewer cars passed the school - and of course that is great news for the school but not so great news is those journeys were not cut - if they were re-routed then the cut claim is disingenuous at best. Also, re-tweeting what appears to be a sponsored or placed article is not best practice by Will - it's kind of a continuation of trying to control the narrative and hope that people don't scratch beneath the surface and only read the headline.

Malumbu - do you actual read the posts before you respond with your musings? The government's response was in response to people signing a petition complaining to the govt about the LTNs and asking them to initiate an independent review. They then responded saying that have appointed UoW to manage an independent evaluation of the impact of the LTNS....to which people have, quite rightly stated that Rachel Aldred and UoW don't tick many boxes on "independent". The argument is hardly silly - it's a serious question about how independent the evaluation is. We have stated that we think the evaluation is flawed (in terms of data collection and the presumptions made by UoW that impact the outcomes) and the authors of the report cannot claim to be independent. In light of this maybe you would care to counter with your argument as to why you think the data is robust and the evaluation credible - it's about time you actually debated something rather than just name-calling ;-).

It's a self-fulfilling cycle of spin - it's laughable that they call Aldred's work independent.....I do think it is interesting that they refer to the work as evaluation rather than research - at least that is accurate because all the UoW is doing to taking the council's numbers and presenting them in a different form than the councils presented them - it appears UoW is doing zero of their own research - just marking the council's homework and saying...jolly well done your answers are right (and we don't care that you haven't provided any of your workings out so we have no idea how you got to the correct answer)!

With the budget challenges all councils are facing they will be very keen for teams like the events team to be able to self-fund, and I suspect ultimately, keep themselves in employment as I am sure those types of services are the first to get cut when councils look to reduce spending and that £244k would likely include the salaries etc of the events team themselves (as well as the events they organise).

Joined-up is the key here - nothing about what the Mayor or councils are doing in relation to active travel is joined-up and this is why it is proving to be an unmitigated disaster that will actually damage the long-term viability of active travel measures and damage the city we live in.

Lavrov and Khan both had hard times spinning their warped narratives in front of live audiences this week! ;-) On an unrelated matter I noticed today that there are two sets of monitoring strips in Dulwich village...one close to the lights at Turney and another set up close to the pedestrian crossing at Gilkes Place and it got me thinking as to why there are two strips there. I can only think that they are monitoring numbers of traffic turning left from Turney to DV but both are regularly under crawling traffic (especially the one closest to Turney) and I wondered whether the placement might have been determined to "inflate" the numbers of cars turning from Turney onto DV - which anyone who spends anytime in DV will know is not traffic heavy.

Remind me where anyone describes the pro-LTN crowd as looney-lefties...... I can assure you there are unsavoury characters on both sides of the argument but for the pro-LTN lobby and the likes of Sadiq to call it out so frequently is nothing more than a brazen attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in a desperate attempt to kill opposition. It's a clear sign they can't make the opposition go away so have resorted to nothing more name calling. It's sad to see an elected representative stooping to such levels and I think it could well backfire - but seems to be point one in the pro-LTN playbook - look even you Malumbu have resorted to repeated childish name calling on more than one occasion on here - a sure sign you ran out of rational arguments!

Oh my....the fact that Sadiq used that to demonise anyone who objects to ULEZ is absolutely outrageous and you can actually see it in his eyes as he says it that he thinks it might have been a mistake playing that card at that time and could backfire and galvanise even more opposition, I haven't seen the full session but I very much suspect he went to "far right. Covid deniers, Tories etc" to distract from the pounding he was taking from the residents affected by it who were giving him a hard time. Given we have a mayoral election again next year Sadiq might be feeling the pressure a bit as his policies come back to bite him. DuncanW - these last few posts validate my point completely on why Southway HAVE to make LTNs be seen to be working. To my earlier point this is why even if Southwark had proof that LTNs were increasing pollution they couldn't remove them because they have to toe the party line. If they (and other Labour run councils) were to remove them Sadiq's policy house of cards would come tumbling down.....ah the beauty of politics...it's always the people who ultimately suffer no matter which party is in control ;-) And yes, I am characterising Southwark council (and Southwark Labour for that matter) as far-left - Southwark have a well-earned reputation for being on the far-left of the party - just look, we have a self-proclaimed Marxist as a local councillor in James McAsh and I refer you to the thread on the in-fighting that went on within the party over Harriet Harman's replacement - /viewtopic.php?t=2249079&hilit=harriet+harman And then there's the influence Party HQ tried to exert on trying to ensure a Momentum candidate didn't get selected in that process: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/labour-dissolves-harman-seat-selection-panel-in-row-over-candidates

Because it is a strategic policy and the far-left of the Labour party always struggle to admit they get anything wrong. And also because I think they really believe that short-term harm will deliver long-term benefits - that they have to live with the harm as the measures "bed-in". But the belief that "evaporation" not "displacement" takes place is looking more and more misguided. I truly believe when Cllr McAsh described what success for LTNs looks like he really thought they would deliver that but they clearly haven't and clearly won't.

Rahx3 - the council pays companies to collect the data and then the data is analysed and presented by the council to support their narrative that the LTNs are a good thing. That data is then collected by active travel lobbyist and ex-LCC policy chief Rachel Aldred and used to create reports (funded by TFL and active travel lobbyists) to try and prove LTNs are working. In these reports she makes huge leaps of faith on the validity on the data being presented to her by councils whose interests it is to prove LTNs are working. That's not close to being independent - you know, I know it, everyone knows it and it is laughable that anyone would even try to claim as much. At what point has anyone been involved in the process that can actually claim they have no vested interest in the outcome?

There was a picket at our kids' school some years ago and many of the children found it very upsetting, not because of any action by their teachers on the picket, but because they were confused as to why their teachers would be encouraging others not to enter the school and felt they were betraying their teachers by entering the school themselves. It's a very difficult one to get the balance right on as children, especially younger ones really can't comprehend what is going on. The school in question asked the picket to move away from the main gates and asked them not to make as much noise (whistles etc) as some of the children didn't like it. They did so and replaced it with very enthusiastic flag waving!

The film industry is in turmoil. The problem is a lack of good films to draw people into cinemas because Netflix et al are the preferred channels to release content. Tom Hanks was saying the challenge for the film industry is a large chunk of their audience (teenagers) is bingeing on a diet of 20 second clips on social media and don't have the patience for films and how do you get someone to sit for 90 minutes when they are used to bite-size content clips.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the barriers might have been put there in the first place?

Rahx3 - there is no research on that because no-one has paid Rachel Aldred to research it and come to that conclusion! ;-) She is paid to come to the opposite conclusion. The challenge remains that Aldred's research is based on numbers given to her by councils (who are keen to show the LTNs are working) based on monitoring that she, herself, suggests may not be accurate if the monitoring strips are placed close to junctions (she doesn't say this directly but that is the clear from her last report). It's a mystery to me why academics working on this can't ask the councils for details of where the strips are located and determine this - surely that should be part of the due-diligence of any piece of research - there seems to be a lot of "trust in the numbers" which may not be warranted? It's clear a lot of the Dulwich LTN monitoring strips are placed close to junctions and Enfield is the only council to admit that their data is not accurate on the basis of that. So there is a more than a chance, wouldn't you say, that Southwark's monitoring numbers may not be a true reflection of reality and therefore Aldred's research based on potentially inaccurate date?

Clean Air Dulwich are just never happy are they - all that moaning about everything must be very emotionally draining? ;-) Do they ever stop to consider why barriers like that were put there in the first place?

It is telling that in Aldred's latest LTN report she acknowledges the fact Enfield admitted that their counters were not recording accurately under 10kph but she stated that it was presumed other councils has not situated counters close to junctions and therefore the data supplied by the council's for her report was correct. Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m she was given to prove LTNs are a rip roaring success checking where the monitoring strips are located and whether, as result, council data is accurate. Anyone can take a brisk walk around Dulwich and see for themselves......

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death. Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village. And forcing yet more traffic down main roads (which I remind you some of our local councillors have suggested is the rightful place for displaced traffic) is going to mean there are many more children suffering from the effects of increased pollution who happen to live on them - this is a point often overlooked/ignored by the pro-LTN lobby - we can't use some roads, and the people who live on them, as collateral damage in the fight for a reduction in pollution - how on earth is that fair?

Malumbu - leaving your old post here with no/little comment.....;-) It's amazing how quickly this post has come back to haunt you and the position you are taking on said subject today...normally you get tripped up/exposed by much older posts ;-)

Armand - the council's intentions were absolutely right - reduce traffic, congestion and pollution are the right thing to do and critical but they put all their eggs in the LTN basket (LTNs are proven to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem at hand) and when it was clear they were not delivering as advertised (they only reduce traffic for those inside the LTNs and increase traffic for those outside) they doubled-down and began digging themselves an even bigger hole and manipulating the data (if you walk around Dulwich take look at how close the monitoring strips are located to junctions or traffic lights - an absolute no-no unless you want to record fewer cars than are actually using that road). Far/hard left politicians find it very difficult to admit they got something wrong and it has been interesting how more considered and moderate Southwark councillors like Radha Burgess, who acknowledged and opposed much of the LTNs negative impacts, have since left their seats. Statements I see on here from pro-LTN supporters about "the vast majority of people" being able to walk or cycle just demonstrates how blinkered they are. It's the classic "well, if I can then why can't you" mantra and often seasoned with a huge dose of hypocrisy. The discussion normally goes a little something like this: "If I can live my live pottering around Dulwich buying my artisan groceries on my £5,000 cargo bike that I store in my back-garden which I access via my side-return then why can't everyone else do the same....?" "But you still own a car don't you" "Err yes, well I do because I need it to visit relatives in the country/visit my 2nd home in the country/transport furniture to my 2nd home in the country/transport my bikes/emergencies/get my kids to school when it's raining/get to the nearest railway station/drive my kids to their sports games"...and so the list goes on. Dulwich has always had some of the highest levels of active travel for local journeys in Southwark with the large majority of such journeys being walked yet the council decided to target the area with LTNs - only they seem to know the reason why as they had said previously that areas like Dulwich don't make sense for LTNs due to the poor PTAL scores in the area. Granted the intention was probably to target the non-local residents who drive through Dulwich but by putting the LTNs in the council made things infinitely worse for many of the local residents by forcing more traffic down fewer roads - and it is being allowed to continue.

Yes and my use of quote marks was because they would say they are posting in a personal capacity on social media and not in their capacity as a journalist - although those lines are very blurred nowadays anyway as their output in a journalistic capacity on the subject is far from impartial! Of course, there were clearly undesirables who were part of the protest but by tarring everyone with the same brush creates more problems and I do wonder how much the Oxford counter-demo balaclava-wearing folks were in direct response to previous articles and comments made suggesting these demos were infiltrated by far-right extremists. No doubt Walker and Vine's comments (and their were plenty of others from the usual pro-LTN commentators) will have stoked the fire even more for the next protest.

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion. Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔 It's clear there are unsavoury types who will grasp onto any protest to try and get some publicity and Lozza Fox, David Kurten and Piers Corbyn are very unusual bed-fellows (and who have views that 99.9% of people do not agree with) but there is a concerted effort to paint anyone and everyone who is associated with anti-LTNs as some sort of fascist, Covid-denier, lunatic - a tactic even seen by some pro-LTN supporters on here over the last couple of years - especially around the Dulwich Square protest. The likes of Peter Walker and Jeremy Vine know, all too well, that protests can attract a weird bunch but are more than happy to amplify the narrative that demonises anyone with an anti-LTN agenda - they make "observations" from their keyboards, in their guise as "journalists", without actually being on the ground themselves and determining what the make-up of the group actually was - happily demonising people and fanning the flames because it suits their personal agenda and then, glibly, suggesting if they were an anti-LTN protestor they would be worried that the cause was being taken over by extremists etc..... Meanwhile, there was a counter-protest in Oxford at the same time and look, those pro-LTN supporters seem to have swapped cargo bikes for balaclavas...;-) We see the same demonising tactics with the likes of the Dulwich Roads twitter account locally where every accident is blamed on bad driving before the owner of the twitter account has even tried to ascertain what has happened - demonising all drivers involved in accidents as "bad drivers".