Rockets

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ex- my point is very clear. The council are > comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme > and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the > conclusion that the LTNs have been a success > because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic > numbers. > > But they also acknowledge in their "helpful > background note" (your words and I love the > wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the > post-scheme numbers they have published will have > been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% > decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark > which has nothing to do with the LTNs. > > If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to > start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and > compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one > set of figures to create a level playing field. > Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or > adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in > traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim > that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the > Southwark area reduction in overall traffic. > > At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively > benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those > are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby > are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the > LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% > lower to start with - do you not agree? Rahx3 - speaking of which any comments on the above? Am I wrong or am I right? If I am right then you can clearly see how the council is manipulating the data they present to try to skew the narrative in their favour.

I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door was imploring people to vote for them locally to have influence on the Southwark wide picture as they are saying they are the only party that can start to call Labour to account at the council level. Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it from both camps....they created a new "third rail" for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I initially thought and I wonder if we might see the Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes. I think Labour are in big trouble locally but, let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou" approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like their approach where they seem to think they are the only form of transport that should be allowed to use roads. Many of them talk about driver entitlement yet display the same signs in regard to cycling. The recent debate around the new Highway Code has been demonstrating this. There is so much misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people are actually going to get injured as a result. For example, the give way to cyclists continuing ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible directive but the way it has been positioned by both sides of tbe argument is actually leading cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left. So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of cyclists following - they need to give way to the left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning that. And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory comments about a vehicle being "specifically designed to kill children" and continuing his own "war on cars". Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy chastises the driver not the cyclist. We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not the other and I am glad to see some police starting to police the bad cyclists who are tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the moment I am afraid to say.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ---------------------------------------. I would > much prefer to > > hear about what is being done to resolve the > > problems rather than photo op after photo op of > > her outside various sorting offices. > > > "Photo op after photo op"? How many have there > been? Quite a few....started in 2018 and have been a regular occurance (lots on her blog as well)...gone into overdrive the last few weeks.... Seems to be a lot of grandstanding going on by our local councillors on the issue yet no-one seems to be able to tell us what is going on or when it will be fixed. Perhaps they are powerless to do anything as it is a private company and clearly a management vs union/employee issue.

A week is a long time in the world of a pro-cycling lobbyist/antagonist and journalist...;-) Jan 31st https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-editorial-cycling-licences Feb 5 https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1489874544462602240?t=mNIqp-7mJmLYHJPvOr1rDA&s=19

To be fair she has been visiting the sorting offices to try to resolve the issue for nigh on two and a half years now.....and it has been getting worse not better. I would much prefer to hear about what is being done to resolve the problems rather than photo op after photo op of her outside various sorting offices. Charlie Smith was on here saying we should expect some updates....has anyone heard anything?

Helen Hayes visited another sorting office ...does anyone know what she does when she gets there or are these just photo ops?

Interesting approach and whilst you can see the rational for doing it to try to hit those who drive massive 4-wheel drive cars for no reason it's a bit bottom trawling fishing process in that a lot of people who need bigger vehicles for their work, for disabled or elderly family members get caught up in it. It will also impact electric cars which are usually heavier than their petrol equivalents. Looks like another greenwashing revenue generating exercise from the council. Perhaps the scrapping of the Phase 3 and 4 LTN plans has left them with a revenue hole, despite the millions they have earned from the LTN cameras.

Ha ha and you suggest it's not true by linking to a click-bait article in Forbes written by a pro-cycling journalist whose books include Roads Were Not Built for Cars! As a cyclist I am glad that the police are clamping down on the growing number of cyclists who now ignore all the rules and give us fellow cyclists a bad name. The problem is growing and getting worse, despite the claims made by pro-cycling journalist Peter Walker. We can all see it for ourselves. Only today I was walking along Court Lane and had to move for a father and his two children cycling along the pavement - there was less "traffic" on the road than the pavement so I could not work out why they were on the pavement. And I see pro-cycle lobbyists like Jeremy Vine using cameras to film, share on social media and report bad driving to police to issue fines and I thought who is policing the bad cyclists? And it seems some councils are starting to do it - why? Because it is becoming a real problem and they need to encourage all cyclists to follow the rules or be fined. Just walk down to Margy Square and you will see more examples of bad cycling than good cycling every single day.

I can't wait to see our local councillors posting pictures of themselves out with police capturing red light jumping cyclists...;-) https://road.cc/content/news/police-catch-18-red-light-jumping-cyclists-90-minutes-289991?amp

Legal - I think you are right, a lot of people use their votes differently in local council elections. Granted a lot use it as a means to send a message to national government but also a lot don?t bother to vote at all and I think the issue for Labour is whether people who have not voted before feel motivated enough to get out and vote. I suspect the local anger with the way the council has treated many local residents may act as more of a catalyst to get out and vote than registering a message to national government. It is with me - I just need to decide where my tactical vote goes. The issue is that the Dulwich Village ward saw a pretty close run election last time and a small swing will have an impact. Bottom line is the council have, by the way they have managed the LTNs, created a one-issue election in many of the Dulwich wards and the choices seem clear on the mandates for each of the candidates in terms of their approach to LTNs. It has been incredibly foolish for the council to ignore the local sentiment throughout the local LTN debacle and it may come back to bite them in May. They massively under-estimated the backlash amongst the local community.

I wonder how they monitor - I suspect using tracked items as the barometer. We got a package of Christmas cards from the grandparents to each of our children that took 7 weeks to complete its journey. Interestingly none of the old mail seems to have been franked - does anyone know why that might be (and I think a few others noticed this as well previously)? Or have I just answered my previous question? Ribrob - I think someone tried to go to the sorting office to collect their missing mail and was told they couldn't as it was all piled high in bags still.

Are the same problems affecting the Peckham side of the Peckham sorting office?

And I saw Cllrs Leeming and Newens mustering with others outside Au Ciel this morning...I was half expecting a knock at the door from them later as they began canvassing. "Councillors, I have been expecting you. would you like to come in for a cup of tea.. I have a few things I would like to discuss with you...." Unfortunately they didn't come knocking. But it does look like some got the knock.... https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1487406307103629317?t=99jaG7XTX3W7cQ9oFXFSow&s=19 ..."lots of interesting and useful feedback"...you could interpret that in many ways...

Two copies of The Week junior landed today - one from 18 December and one from 15th January and two Christmas cards - straight to recycling thanks to the Royal Mail..... But Helen Hayes is on the case....again.....!!!

One Dulwich update: Dear all, More than 2,000 One Dulwich supporters Welcome to our new supporters ? as of today?s date, 2,107 of us have now signed up to the campaign. We continue to object to Southwark Council?s flawed scheme because, according to Southwark Council?s own modelling, it offers no overall improvement in air quality and instead: displaces traffic and pollution on to residential roads with schools and health centres; discriminates against those with poor mobility; damages the viability of local shops and businesses. In the run-up to the local elections in May 2022, it?s even more important that we make our voices heard, so please encourage family, friends and neighbours to sign up to the campaign: Support One Dulwich. Why is Southwark delaying the permanent traffic orders? On 24 January, Southwark Council sent out an email telling us that: the decision to approve the scheme was made on 23 December 2021; the permanent orders will come into effect on Thursday 17 February 2022; all principal and boundary roads will be monitored (although the email doesn?t say which ones); 24/7 monitoring has been introduced on Burbage Road, Townley Road, and Dulwich Village, and will continue on the middle section of East Dulwich Grove (near the Tessa Jowell health centre). Separately, we have just seen a second 21-day emergency traffic order dated 19 January 2022 (so running out on 9 February 2022) that keeps the junction of Calton Avenue/Dulwich Village/Court Lane closed. As before, the reason for the order is apparently ?to safeguard the high volume of pedestrians that are using this area to access schools and local businesses?. Embarrassingly for Southwark, they will have to make a further so-called emergency traffic order to span the gap between 9 and 17 February 2022. Otherwise the junction road closure will have no legal basis. It seems that the Council is intent on delaying the process of making the traffic orders permanent. Why? So that continuing objections can be legally ignored as the Council goes into the period of ?heightened sensitivity? in March before the May 2022 elections? (See the official guidance here.) The legal challenge In the meantime, work with the Dulwich Alliance?s legal team continues, thanks to all your generous donations to the Dulwich Alliance?s fighting fund. At this stage, based on legal advice, the Dulwich Alliance has decided to wait for the final details in the permanent traffic orders before taking next steps. Thank you for your continued support Does anyone with a sharp legal or political brain know why the council would be filibustering over making the closure permanent? Or have they hit a legal issue with their implementation - we know the emergency services have voice their opinion and been ignored about the DV closures?

Ex- my point is very clear. The council are comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the conclusion that the LTNs have been a success because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic numbers. But they also acknowledge in their "helpful background note" (your words and I love the wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the post-scheme numbers they have published will have been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark which has nothing to do with the LTNs. If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one set of figures to create a level playing field. Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the Southwark area reduction in overall traffic. At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% lower to start with - do you not agree?

Redpost - you are trying to find something to back up your argument and failing. Southwark has consistently said, and even mentioned it in their LTN monitoring report, that traffic across Southwark was down hugely during the pandemic. Page 19 of their monitoring report plots the monthly traffic figures, showing that traffic was down significantly for much of the pandemic and never once got above 2019 levels. They also state that traffic was 7.1% lower in September 21 compared to September 19 and that "Results for motor vehicle flows in this report should therefore be considered in this context." So, all of those numbers they presented on traffic reduction (that many of you have been waving around as proof of success) have to take that 7.1% area-wide reduction into consideration because it is not factored into their post-scheme numbers. This is why so many of us have been questioning these numbers because we are not seeing or experiencing what they claim - and that is because their numbers aren't a true reflection of what is actually happening. For a true reflection they would have needed to remove the 7.1% from the pre-scheme figures or add 7.1% to the post-scheme figures. But they chose not to....anyone got any guesses why that might have been.....?

So, on the basis of that, and on the basis that Southwark has quoted that traffic across Southwark has been down by 7% during the pandemic, the numbers quoted by the council in their summary infographic, and in the main report, are wrong aren't they? Because they have not adjusted the pre-scheme figures on the basis of the 7% reduction in traffic during the Covid pandemic. They are not comparing like with like. So traffic has not declined 4% on Lordship Lane near Court Lane - it has increased by 3%. Likewise, it has not increased by 4% on Lordship Lane near Townley it has, in fact, increased by 11%. Croxted Road the same - no longer a 7% decrease in traffic but no change And so the list goes on...... The council are manipulating the figures to their own advantage and not levelling the playing field for a fair and balanced comparison. Thoughts?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you applied that logic to the nth degree, then > you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village on > this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum. > > Also - maybe you should be less rude? > > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > What policies do they have that show they?re > > > ?centrist? @heartblock? > > > > > > The only policies they suggested were > fighting > > to > > > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service > > > (something that they had no remit over). > > > > > > There is nothing to suggest that they are > ?Tory > > > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting > for > > > them you won?t be voting for Conservative > > > councillors - they are part of the local > > > association with all that entails > > > > Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village > Ward > > politics as I don't believe you live in it? Goldilocks - you appear to have missed my question to you. I will paste it below so you can take a look and respond...... Here's another pearl I found from my review of the methodology report which I think is quite shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are being compared with post-scheme numbers that have reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced reduction in driving across the borough: See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it states: Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in relation to COVID-19, although context on how traffic levels have changed throughout the pandemic is provided in reporting. Any comments on that?

Goldilocks - the councillors do not respond to anything LTN related. Do you have any other ideas how we can get these questions answered? Here's another pearl I found from my review of the methodology report which I think is quite shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are being compared with post-scheme numbers that have reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced reduction in driving across the borough: See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it states: Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in relation to COVID-19, although context on how traffic levels have changed throughout the pandemic is provided in reporting. Any comments on that?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh look you're doing it again Rockets > > 'I think that there's a problem because it suits > my narrative, I haven't actually worked out if > there is a problem and at this stage I just have > questions, but i thought I'd throw some mud around > because there are enough people on here who will > repeat it as fact' > > You raise a question as to whether data was > collected either both within or both outside > school holidays. Rather than finding out, you > thought you'd just suggest it in a way that > indicates you know the answer. Its clear you > don't. > > The data is difficult to get hold of, its not > presented well, the comms have been ineffective > and insufficient. Does this mean any of it is > wrong? no! > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > heartblock Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data > - > > > which shows traffic is significantly reduced > > for > > > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove > > and > > > Townley (where the Charter school, health > > centre > > > and Dutch Estate is)" > > > > > > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and > > it > > > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not > > correct > > > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong > anyway > > - > > > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich > > Hosp > > > site and isn't at Townley - that central > > stretch > > > is about 10 metres and doesn't include > Townley > > or > > > the Dutch estate. > > > > > > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't > > know > > > the area very well at all - do you? > > > > > > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years > > and > > > you might have a bit more knowledge of this > > road. > > > > Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't > look > > beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines > they > > are spoonfed by the council and they > regurgitate > > it without actually checking for thenselves. > > > > I started taking a closer look at the > > "methodology" that the council shared to > support > > the figures they published and it makes for > > fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed > piece > > of research is an understatement. > > > > My interest was peaked to look beyond the > > headlines because the methodology document > stated > > that the pre-scheme data collection was done > out > > of school holidays yet it didn't make the same > > claim for the post-scheme data collection and I > > wondered whether the council had been fudging > the > > results in their favour by comparing school > > holiday flows with non-school holiday flows. > > > > I am still working through it but if anyone > wants > > my initial headline assessment PM me and I will > > happily share the key slides that I think pose > > more questions than provide answers and maybe > > someone else can take a look and see if they > are > > seeing the same things I am. Goldilocks - do share with me how you suggest we find out. The information on the council's own methodology report on Page 5 quite clearly states: When Was Pre-Scheme Data Collected? ? The data used to understand traffic prior to the Streetspace scheme was mostly collected by the Council for studies prior to 2020 with some additional collection in June 2020. This data collection all took place outside school holidays. ? Where multiple data sets at a location were collected prior to scheme implementation, the most recent data collected prior to March 2021 was used to have a pre-scheme dataset unimpacted by COVID-19 where possible. When Was Post-Scheme Data Collected? ? Data for after the implementation of the Streetspace schemes was collected in September 2020, and then either continuously or in tranches in 2021. ? On key external roads data has been collected continuously throughout 2021, on other roads data has been collected for all weeks in March, April, June and September 2021. ? The time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf. So, it's clear that the Pre-Scheme data was collected out of school holidays yet it is not clear when the Post Scheme Data was collected. You would expect the same caveat to be applied if it was the case in both pre- and post-? Surely, would you not agree that if the Post-Scheme Data was collected in school holidays then that would have a significant impact on the monitoring report?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s a fair summary of situation on CP Rd > actually 👍🏼 > > ed26 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ha. I'll try not to get sucked in. > > > > But.... as I have seen on CPR.... > > > > Driving - obvious. It's far busier than it used > to > > be. There's always been a bit of congestion > around > > the nursery but it's the streams of cars that > is > > the problem. When 10 vehicles going one way > come > > across 10 vehicles going the other way and one > is > > a bit too wide or one driver refuses to pull in > a > > bit (I've never understood that) then it all > > grinds to a halt. > > > > Cyclists - it's got busier due to the Spine > route > > and people returning to work in the City. I > guess > > many of these are just passing through and not > > local residents but they weave in and out of > the > > waiting traffic, cycling on the wrong side of > the > > road when there's traffic coming down the other > > way, and try to squeeze through gaps while the > > cars are trying to manoeuvre into spaces to let > > traffic pass the other way. So the LTN has made > it > > more dangerous for those cyclists. > > > > Pedestrians - it's just not as nice walking up > CPR > > as it used to be. Maybe I'm comparing a cold > > grotty winter day with a lovely spring morning > but > > it's just not a pleasant experience walking up > a > > road next to gridlocked traffic with cars > belching > > out fumes and builders shouting obscenities at > > each other and blasting their horns. Makes me > want > > to drive. > > > > I know we need to do something to reduce > > unnecessary car journeys but this isn't it. > It's > > just funnelling traffic that didn't previously > > need to be on CPR onto CPR and p*ssing everyone > > off. But hang on, the council's data shows that this cannot possibly be happening, absolutely definitely not happening and even if it is the EDG Central made up numbers make all of the collateral damage across the rest of Dulwich more than worth it.....;-)

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data - > which shows traffic is significantly reduced for > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove and > Townley (where the Charter school, health centre > and Dutch Estate is)" > > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and it > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not correct > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong anyway - > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich Hosp > site and isn't at Townley - that central stretch > is about 10 metres and doesn't include Townley or > the Dutch estate. > > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't know > the area very well at all - do you? > > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years and > you might have a bit more knowledge of this road. Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't look beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines they are spoonfed by the council and they regurgitate it without actually checking for thenselves. I started taking a closer look at the "methodology" that the council shared to support the figures they published and it makes for fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed piece of research is an understatement. My interest was peaked to look beyond the headlines because the methodology document stated that the pre-scheme data collection was done out of school holidays yet it didn't make the same claim for the post-scheme data collection and I wondered whether the council had been fudging the results in their favour by comparing school holiday flows with non-school holiday flows. I am still working through it but if anyone wants my initial headline assessment PM me and I will happily share the key slides that I think pose more questions than provide answers and maybe someone else can take a look and see if they are seeing the same things I am.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In about 15 years from now cars will be fully > automated and electric. The internal combustion > engine will be a museum piece. There will be very > little pollution and no road traffic accidents > whatsoever. > > And in the future beyond that people will use > personal aviation machines which will no doubt > still irritate all the penny farthing fetishists. > > Fully automated cars have been "10-15 years away" > for about 35 years now. They're still "10-15 years > away". Yes, you've got cars that have a high > degree of automation built in and test cars have > done full laps of race circuits but there's > currently nothing close to full automation in an > urban environment for consumer use. > > It's another way of kicking the can down the road, > the idea that we don't need to do anything now > because in x years time everything will be > perfect, solved for us by the power of technology. > Which I said back on Page 7... Not entirely true Ex. The electrification of cars, and the threat posed by Tesla, is proving to be a very good catalyst for car manufacturers to embrace ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) and other systems, that accelerate the roll-out of automated driving functions. The scale goes from 0 (parking sensors) up to 5 (no steering wheel) and manufacturers are starting to roll-out level 3 systems. A Tesla can pretty much drive itself right now (granted not in a city environment) and you can even summon it from it's parking space if it is less than 200 feet away. So it's coming - granted it has taken longer than many had hoped and it will take a long time to establish and will need to get buy-in from the likes of TFL and local authorities to put in some of the infrastructure required to make it work at level 5 (where your car/bus/van/lorry will communicate with everything and everyone around it) but it's coming. Of course it is not an overnight solution and I don't think anyone is suggesting we should do nothing until those systems arrive but they are coming and they will drastically reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads. I do think, however, that councils and the likes of TFL should be doing a lot more to embrace electrification of vehicles as every fossil-fuel vehicle they encourage people to get rid of will reduce pollution far more efficiently and effectively than LTNs will ever manage to do.